You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , ,

CLAIMANT’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S UNIQUE REQUIREMENT OF FULL EXPERT-WITNESS DISCLOSURE FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN; THAT WAS AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR AN UNTIMELY DISCLOSURE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimant’s treating physician (Hopson) in this personal injury case should have been allowed to testify as an expert, despite the failure to comply with full expert disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101. The Third Department is the only department which requires such full expert disclosure by a treating physician and claimant’s attorney had not practiced in the Third Department:

There is no dispute that claimant failed to comply with the expert disclosure requirements of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) in identifying Hopson as a witness. Nevertheless, we disagree with the Court of Claims’ finding that claimant’s excuse was unreasonable. The situation here mirrors that in Schmitt v Oneonta City Sch. Dist. (151 AD3d 1254), where we accepted the explanation of the plaintiffs’ attorney that he was “unaware of this Court’s interpretation of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) and the corresponding need to file an expert disclosure for a treating physician, and the record [was] otherwise devoid of any indication that counsel’s failure to file such disclosure was willful” … . The same holds true here, as claimant’s attorney revealed that she practices law in a different judicial department and candidly conceded that she was unaware of this Court’s interpretation that the statute requires expert disclosure for treating physicians. There is nothing in the record calling into question the veracity of counsel’s representations and no basis to conclude that the noncompliance with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) was willful. As such, the court erred in precluding Hopson’s testimony as an expert witness…. . Freeman v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 03559, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Only the Third Department requires full expert-witness disclosure for a treating physician.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF, A TEXAS RESIDENT WHO WAS A FLIGHT ATTENDANT FOR 30 YEARS WITH MONTHLY STAY-OVERS IN NEW YORK, DEMONSTRATED NEW YORK HAD LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED TALCUM POWDER PLAINTIFF USED; THE TALCUM POWDER ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S MESOTHELIOMA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined New York had specific long-arm jurisdiction of defendant Shulton, the manufacturer and distributor of talcum powder alleged to have cause plaintiff’s peritoneal mesothelioma. Plaintiff (English) was a flight attendant for 30 years who used the talcum powder when she stayed in New York. Shulton has its principal place of business in New Jersey but has an office in New York and markets the product in New York:

English, a Texas resident, was employed as a flight attendant for 33 years, from 1966 to 1999. During a substantial part of that time, she used Desert Flower on a daily basis after showering. From 1966 to 1984, English was regularly assigned to flights into New York and flew into this state two to four times a month. She usually remained in New York on two- or three-day layovers. When English travelled, she packed Desert Flower in her luggage, so she would have it available for use when she showered. There is no claim that the Desert Flower English used in New York was purchased in New York.

Shulton is incorporated in New Jersey, where it had its principal place of business during the time that English claims to have used Desert Flower. Shulton never manufactured Desert Flower in New York, and in the mid-1970s the manufacture of its talc products shifted from Tennessee to New Jersey. Desert Flower was marketed nationally, including in New York. During the relevant period of time, Shulton maintained a New York office from which it conducted its marketing activities for its Cosmetics and Toiletries Division. The New York office was also headquarters for its International Division. * * * Shulton’s maintenance of its own New York office satisfies the first prong under CPLR 302(a)(1). * * * Desert Flower was marketed and sold nationally, and English used Desert Flower when she travelled to and while she stayed in New York. Shulton’s activities and contacts with New York and the allegedly hazardous talcum powder used by English are sufficient to support an assertion of specific jurisdiction over Shulton…. . English v Avon Prods., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03571, First Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Even though plaintiff was a Texas resident and the company she was suing was based in New Jersey, she was able to sue using New York courts. Plaintiff was a flight attendant for 30 years with monthly stay-overs in New York. Defendant had an office in New York and marketed the talcum powder which allegedly cause plaintiff’s mesothelioma nationwide.

 

,

PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION ALLEGING THE LOBBYING ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PROCEED; PLAINTIFFS ENGAGED IN “GRASSROOTS LOBBYING” IN SUPPORT OF PASSAGE OF THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined plaintiffs’ action alleging the Lobbying Act was unconstitutional as applied to them (First Amendment) should have been allowed to proceed. The opinion is too comprehensive to fairly summarize here. Plaintiffs engaged in publicity aimed at passage of the Child Victims Act (CVA), which extends the statute of limitations for civil and criminal actions stemming from the sexual abuse of children. Although the NYS Joint Commission of Public Ethics (JCOPE) did not end up enforcing the registration and reporting requirements of the Lobbying Act with respect to the plaintiffs’ past activities, it indicated future enforcement if plaintiffs continued with their “grassroots lobbying” efforts:

Plaintiff Katherine C. Sullivan, a resident of Florida, supported the CVA and expressed that support, among other ways, through a website that explained that Sullivan was a survivor of child sexual assault that she was subjected to while attending a school in the City of Troy, Rensselaer County, but that she was barred from seeking legal recourse by then-applicable statutes of limitations. A list of state senators who opposed the CVA was provided, along with a script and postcard template for website visitors to contact state senators to voice support for the CVA. Sullivan also rented digital billboard space in this state that displayed a rotating set of screens, one of which purportedly read, “NY Pass the Child Victims Act,” and another that displayed photographs of state senators next to text asking why they did not support the CVA. Some of the screens also purportedly displayed Sullivan’s website address; all of the screens indicated that they were paid for by plaintiff Kat Sullivan LLC (hereinafter the LLC). Sullivan later arranged for an airplane to circle the Capitol and the school in Troy towing banners that displayed, among other things, the address of her aforementioned website and the hashtag #NYPASSCVA. Sullivan v New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics, 2022 NY Slip Op 03553, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiffs challenged whether the Lobbying Act, which requires lobbyists to register and report, was constitutional as applied to their “grassroots” efforts to garner support for the passage of the Child Victims Act. Supreme Court had dismissed the action. The Third Department partially reinstated it.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS BREACH OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the punitive damages claim against defendant insurer should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was struck by a vehicle when she was in a cross-walk. She settled with the driver’s insurer, with her insurer’s consent, for $25,000. She the brought this breach of contract action against defendant insurer for $225,000, plus punitive damages for a bad-faith breach of the insurance contract:

The elements required to state a claim for punitive damages when the claim arises from a breach of contract are: (1) the defendant’s conduct must be actionable as an independent tort; (2) the tortious conduct must be of the egregious nature set forth in Walker v Sheldon [10 NY2d 401]; (3) the egregious conduct must be directed to the plaintiff; and (4) it must be part of a pattern directed at the public generally. Where a lawsuit has its genesis in the contractual relationship between the parties, the threshold task for a court considering a defendant’s motion to dismiss a demand for punitive damages is to identify a tort independent of the contract … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to allege an independent tort. There is no separate tort for bad faith refusal to comply with an insurance contract … . While an insurer may be held liable for damages to its insured for the bad faith refusal of a settlement offer … , the plaintiff here failed to state such a cause of action. …

The plaintiff has not alleged any facts from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant’s conduct constituted a gross disregard of the plaintiff’s interests. …

The plaintiff failed to allege any facts from which an inference can be drawn that the defendant’s conduct was of an egregious nature as set forth in Walker v Sheldon, such that it was morally reprehensible and of such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations … . Schlusselberg v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 03539, Second Dept 6-1-22

Practice Point: The criteria for punitive damages for breach of contract are difficult to meet. The defendant’s conduct must amount to an independent tort, be morally reprehensible, wantonly dishonest, and criminally indifferent to civil obligations. Here, those criteria were not met by the allegations of breach of an insurance contract.

 

HERE THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA PRECLUDED PLAINTIFF’S FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE ACTION; THE CAUSE OF ACTION COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE PRIOR ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fraudulent conveyance cause of action was precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. Although the fraudulent conveyance claim was not alleged in the prior action, which was dismissed, it could have been raised in the prior action:

In 2016, plaintiff sued NBC, NBF, and PIM, alleging — as she does in the instant action — that NBC and NBF were PIM’s alter egos. In August 2018, Supreme Court (Gerald Lebovits, J.) granted NBC and NBF’s motion to dismiss that action.

While the prior action did not allege fraudulent conveyance, the doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiff from raising that claim here because she could have raised it in the prior action … . Plaintiff learned on or about May 9, 2017 that nonparty Conquest Capital Group had repurchased the equity it had previously sold to PIM. She filed an amended complaint in the prior action on May 26, 2017. Although plaintiff alleges that she did not discover the price at which Conquest repurchased its equity until November 2018, she could have learned this fact earlier by making inquiries … . Aboelnaga v National Bank of Can., 2022 NY Slip Op 03467, First Dept 5-31-22

Practice Point: The doctrine of res judicata precludes causes of action which could have been investigated and raised in a prior action.

 

,

PLAINTIFFS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SECURITIES ACT BASED UPON ALLEGEDLY MISLEADING INFORMATION IN THE SECONDARY PUBLIC OFFERING (SPO) (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined plaintiffs, who purchased securities based upon allegedly inaccurate information in defendants’ secondary public offering (SPO), stated causes of action for violations of the Securities Act. The court noted that the heightened pleading requirements of CPLR 3015(b) do not apply to the Securities Act violations alleged in the complaint:

… [C]laims for violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 USC §§ 77k, 77l[a][2], and 77o) are not subject to the heightened pleading requirements of CPLR 3016(b) … .

… [T]he alleged misstatements in the SPO cannot be deemed forward-looking or mere puffery as a matter of law because the complaint alleges that defendants knew at the time of the SPO that present facts rendered statements in the SPO misleading or false. The generic, boilerplate risk warnings in the offering documents do not shield defendants from liability … .

… [P]laintiff adequately]alleges that, once [defendant] spoke about its “significant exposure to emerging markets in Asia,” it was obligated to disclose the “whole truth,” namely that its mobile solutions business in China was actually experiencing a sharp decline at the time of the SPO … . Erie County Empls.’ Retirement Sys. v NN, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03473, First Dept 5-31-22

Practice Point: The heightened pleading requirements for fraud (CPLR 3016) do not apply to the causes of action here alleging violations of the Securities Act—allegedly misleading information in a secondary public offering (SPO).

 

, ,

THE LLC’S FAILURE TO CHANGE THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS NOT A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE FOR A DEFAULT; PARTIES TO WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED AFTER THE LIS PENDENS WAS FILED ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES BECAUSE THEY ARE BOUND BY THE RESULT IN THIS ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) defendant E&A did not show a reasonable excuse for its default, and (2) the parties to which the property was transferred after the lis pendens was filed were not necessary parties because they are bound by the result of the instant action:

E&A asserted that it did not receive the summons and complaint, which had been served on the Secretary of State, because it had failed to keep its address updated. However, where a defendant does not receive service of process because it failed to keep a current address on file with the Secretary of State, courts will not find a reasonable excuse for a default … . …

Supreme Court should have denied E&A’s cross motion insofar as it sought to join as defendants Yuanqing Liu (who purchased the property from E&A) and NYC Happy Housing LLC (which purchased the property from Liu), as Liu and NYC Happy Housing are not necessary parties. On the contrary, Liu and NYC Happy Housing need not be joined to accord complete relief or to avoid an inequitable effect (CPLR 1001[a]); rather, they are “bound by all proceedings taken in the action . . . to the same extent as a party” because their conveyances were recorded after the filing of the notice of pendency (CPLR 6501 …). Majada Inc. v E&A RE Capital Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 03476, First Dept 5-31-22

Practice Point: A limited liability corporation’s (LLC’s) failure to change the address on file with the Secretary of State is not an acceptable excuse for a default. Because a lis pendens was filed against the defendant’s property here, the parties to which the property was subsequently transferred are bound by the result of this action and are not, therefore, necessary parties.

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO QUASH SUPBOENAS ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (OAG) TO THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION IN THE OAG’S FRAUD INVESTIGATION; THE FACT THAT THERE IS A RELATED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE CIVIL DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in this civil investigation by the Office of Attorney General (OAG) into whether the respondent Trump Organization committed fraud in their financial practices and disclosure, Supreme Court properly refused to quash the OAG’s subpoenas seeking depositions and documents. The fact that there is also a criminal investigation does preclude civil discovery:

The existence of a criminal investigation does not preclude civil discovery of related facts, at which a party may exercise the privilege against self-incrimination … .. Individuals have no constitutional or statutory right to be called to testify before a grand jury under circumstances that would give them immunity from prosecution for any matter about which they testify; although subjects of a grand jury proceeding have a statutory right to appear and testify, this right is conditioned upon the witness waiving the right to immunity and giving up the privilege against self-incrimination (CPL 190.50[5] …). The political campaign and other public statements made by OAG about appellants do not support the claim that OAG initiated, or is using, the subpoenas in this civil investigation to obtain testimony solely for use in a criminal proceeding or in a manner that would otherwise improperly undermine appellants’ privilege against self-incrimination … . Neither does the record suggest that, in the absence of a civil investigation, OAG would be likely to grant immunity to appellants — the primary subjects of the criminal investigation — to secure their grand jury testimony. Thus, the subpoenas did not frustrate any right to testify with immunity. Matter of People of the State of New York v Trump Org., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03456, First Dept 5-26-22

Practice Point: This case stems from the Office of Attorney General’s (OAG’s) fraud investigation of the Trump Organization. Supreme Court properly refused to quash the OAG’s subpoenas. The fact that there is a related criminal investigation does not preclude civil discovery. There was no showing the appellants’ privilege against self-incrimination was being undermined by the subpoenas seeking depositions and documents.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP (NJT) BUS IN NEW YORK; NJT IS AN ARM OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE APPLIES; HOWEVER, UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW PLANTIFF CANNOT SUE IN NEW JERSEY BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT ARISE THERE; APPLYING THE FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE AS AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK, PLAINTIFF’S NEW YORK LAWSUIT WAS ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, over an extensive two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not require the dismissal of plaintiff’s suit against the New Jersey Transit Corp. (NJT) in this bus-pedestrian accident case. Plaintiff was struck by the NJT bus in New York. The plaintiff, under New Jersey law, could not sue in New Jersey because the cause of action did not arise in New Jersey. The First Department held that the forum non coveniens criteria provided an appropriate analytical framework:

We have previously held that NJT is an arm of the State of New Jersey and that, as such, it is entitled to invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity … .  * * *

… Should we dismiss a personal injury action on the ground of sovereign immunity when the action cannot be commenced in the sovereign’s own courts because the injury arose outside of the sovereign’s borders?

We resolve this issue by analogizing it to the legal framework for the forum non conveniens doctrine. Among the factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss an action under this doctrine, with no single factor controlling, are the burden on New York courts, the potential hardship to the defendant, the availability of an alternate forum in which the plaintiff may bring suit, the residency of the parties, the forum in which the cause of action arose, and the extent to which the plaintiff’s interests may otherwise be properly served by pursing the claim in New York … . Colt v New Jersey Tr. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 03343, First Dept 5-24-22

Practice Point: A bus operated by the New Jersey Transit Corp (NJT) struck plaintiff in New York. NJT is an arm of the state of New Jersey to which the sovereign immunity doctrine applies. But, under New Jersey law, the suit cannot be brought in New Jersey. After analyzing the case using the forum non coveniens criteria, the First Department allowed the New York lawsuit to go forward.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE FIRST PRESENTED IN REPLY; PLAINTIFF WAS COLLATERALY ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AND COGNITIVE DISORDER BY THE RULING IN HIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this construction accident case, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been granted because it was based upon information raised for the first time in reply. The First Department noted that Supreme Court properly found that the ruling in plaintiff’s Workers’ Compensation case collaterally estopped plaintiff from claiming traumatic brain injury and cognitive disorder in this Labor Law action:

Supreme Court should have denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Labor Law § 241(6), which was based on an expert affidavit submitted in reply. The affidavit, which constituted the first time plaintiff asserted violations of 12 NYCRR 23-2.2(a) and (b), was not addressed to the arguments made in defendants’ opposition, and instead sought to assert new grounds for the motion … .

Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from litigating his allegation that he sustained traumatic brain injury and cognitive disorder, since the allegation was previously raised and conclusively decided against him in a Workers’ Compensation Board proceeding, where plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue … . Douglas v Tishman Constr. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 03344, First Dept 5-24-22

Practice Point: Evidence first presented in reply and which does not address anything raised by the other party’s opposition papers should not be considered by the court. A ruling in a Workers’ Compensation case, here rejecting the worker’s traumatic brain injury and cognitive disorder claims, may  preclude the same claims in a Labor Law action pursuant to the collateral estoppel doctrine.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy