Civil Procedure Update April – June 2022 – Part 3 of 3

Civil Procedure Update April – June 2022 – Part 3

(Nontransitional) Prerecorded Audio (On Demand/Recorded-Audio)

Appropriate for Experienced Attorneys

Areas of Professional Practice: 3 CLE Credit Hours

Note: Before Relying On Any Decision Summarized on this Site, Including the Summaries in the CLE Written Materials, Make Sure It Remains Good Law Using the Method You Trust for that Purpose. See the Discussion Under “Shepardize” in the “How to Use the New York Appellate Digest” Section on the Home Page.

This course organizes summaries of decisions by the New York State appellate courts (Appellate Division and Court of Appeals) released between April 1, 2022 and June 30, 2022 which address issues in “Civil Procedure.”

The “Civil Procedure” decision-summaries posted weekly on the New York Appellate Digest website are organized in monthly Reversal Reports which are accessed in the “Update Service.” The monthly Reversal Reports comprise the written materials for these monthly CLE courses. The course is divided into three parts: Part 1 is based on the April 2022 Reversal Report; Part 2 is based on the May 2022 Reversal Report; Part 3 is based on the June 2022 Reversal Report. The link to the June 2022 Reversal Report is below.

As you listen to the course, you will hear verification codes. After finishing Part 3 of the course, print and fill out the “Attorney Affirmation,” including the verification codes, your name, your signature, and the date you completed the course. Please also fill out the attached “Evaluation Survey” (the CLE Board requires that I collect and preserve the Evaluation Surveys). The links to the “Attorney Affirmation” and “Evaluation Survey” are below. Scan the “Attorney Affirmation” and the “Evaluation Survey” and email them as attachments to me, Bruce Freeman, at NewYorkAppellateDigest@gmail.com. I will email to you the completed “New York CLE Certificate of Attendance,” as an attachment, awarding you credit for the 3 credit-hour course. Or, if you wish to send and receive hard copies by regular mail, send the “Attorney Affirmation” and “Evaluation Survey” to New York Appellate Digest, LLC, 126 Colonial Village Road, Rochester, New York 14625 and make sure to include your return address.

Click on the link below for the written materials for Part 1: Civil Procedure Reversal Report June 2022).

The media player for this course is at the bottom of the page.

Civil Procedure Reversal Report June 2022

April, May, June 2022 Civil Procedure Update Attorney Affirmation

Civil Procedure Update April, May. June 2022, Evaluation Form

Topics Covered in the “Civil Procedure Reversal Report June 2022” Are Described Below; the Numbers Refer to the Page Numbers in the Report

JUNE 2022 REVERSAL REPORT

AMENDMENT OF ANSWER. 4

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS ANSWER (ADDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES) WAS MADE AFTER A TWO-YEAR DELAY, THE DELAY ALONE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PLAINTIFF WAS PREJUDICED; THE MOTION TO

AMEND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). 4

AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT AFTER APPELLATE DISMISSAL. 5
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND A COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT). 5

AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT. 7

THE COMPLAINT WAS NEVER PROPERLY AMENDED TO ADD DEFENDANT AS A PARTY PURSUANT TO CPLR 1003 OR CPLR 3025 REQUIRING DISMISSAL (FIRST DEPT). 7

COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION, MENTAL CONDITION IN CONTROVERSY. 8

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLANTIFF TO APPEAR FOR A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION (INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION [IME]) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED HER MENTAL CONDITION IN CONTROVERSY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE NOTE OF ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE (FIRST DEPT). 8

COVID-RELATED COURT PROCEDURES. 9

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF COVID-RELATED PROCEDURAL CHANGES FOR CONDUCTING COMPLIANCE CONFERENCES; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). 9

DOMICILE, FOREIGN WILLS. 10

IF GERMANY WAS DECEDENT’S DOMICILE, NEW YORK MAY RECOGNIZE THE GERMAN HOLOGRAPHIC WILL; MATTER SENT BACK TO SURROGATE’S COURT TO DEVELOP A RECORD ON THE DOMICILE ISSUE (THIRD DEPT). 10
EXPERT DISCLOSURE, TREATING PHYSICIAN, THIRD DEPARTMENT’S UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS. 11
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). 11

FAMILY LAW, IMMIGRATION LAW, SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS. 12

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S REUNIFICATION WITH HER FATHER IN THE IVORY COAST WAS NOT VIABLE TO ENABLE HER TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) AND REMAIN IN THE US (SECOND DEPT). 12

FORECLOSURE, LACK OF STANDING, ACCELERATION OF DEBT. 13

BECAUSE THE PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING, THE PRIOR ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTANT ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). 13

FORECLOSURE, SEVEN-YEAR DELAY IN MOVING FOR JUDGMENT, INTEREST TOLLED. 14

PLAINTIFF OFFERED NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SEVEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE ORDER OF REFERENCE AND THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE; THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE DELAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLLED (SECOND DEPT). 14

GOVERNMENTAL VERSUS PROPRIETARY FUNCTION, IMMUNITY, HARNESS RACING ACCIDENT. 15

THE NYS GAMING COMMISSION’S DUTIES TO INSPECT HORSES AND EQUIPMENT BEFORE A HARNESS RACE ARE PROPRIETARY, NOT GOVERMENTAL, IN NATURE; THEREFORE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLES APPLY AND THE IMMUNITY DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE; DURING THE RACE A HORSE FELL AND CLAIMANT’S HORSE COLLIDED WITH THE FALLEN HORSE; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE FALLEN HORSE’S EQUIPMENT AND WHETHER THE HORSE EXHIBITED INDICATIONS HE WAS LAME; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILTY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE; REGULATIONS RE: THE INSPECTION OF HORSES AND EQUIPMENT ALLOWED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE IMPUTED (THIRD DEPT). 15

JOINT TRIAL, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS. 17

PLAINTIFF’S TWO SEPARATE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS SHOULD BE TRIED TOGETHER BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INJURIES FROM THE FIRST ACCIDENT WERE EXACERBATED BY THE SECOND ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT). 17

LATE ANSWER, MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE. 18

PLAINTIFF SERVED THE COMPLAINT ON NOVEMBER 27, 2018; DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO SERVE AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS REJECTED, ON JANUARY 9, 2019; DEFENDANT’S EXCUSE WAS “THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BY THE INSURANCE CARRIER;” THAT EXCUSE WAS INSUFFICIENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT THE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT). 18

LIS PENDENS. 19

PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING THE PROCEEDS OF A JOINT VENTURE, WHICH, UNDER PARTNERSHIP LAW, INVOLVES PERSONAL PROPERTY, NOT REAL PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF HAD NO INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS TO BE USED AS AN INN OPERATED AS A JOINT VENTURE; THERFORE THE LIS PENDENS FILED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN CANCELLED (FOURTH DEPT). 19

LONG-ARM JURISDICTION. 20

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). 20

MUNICIPAL LAW, CONTRACT LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM. 21

DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF VILLAGE IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 9802; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S ANTICIPATORY-REPUDIATION COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE’S PARTICIPATION IN DISCOVERY WAS NOT DESIGNED TO MISLEAD THE DEFENDANT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). 21

MUNICIPAL LAW, GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A BENEFITS, ARBITRATION. 22

THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A INJURY CLAIM SHOULD BE PROCESSED IS ARBITRABLE BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS ADDRESSED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGANING AGREEMENT (CBA); THE PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 22

MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM. 23

THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SERVED ONLY FIVE DAYS LATE WHICH WAS DEEMED TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE ACTION AND A SHOWING OF THE ABSENCE OF PREJUDICE; THE CITY DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE; THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE WAS NOT FATAL; LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 23

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS, EMPLOYMENT LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. 25

THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF EMPLOYER AND DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE RE: THE SALE OF DEFENDANT’S TAX PREPARATION BUSINESS TO PLAINTIFF AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SOLD HER CLIENT LIST TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 25

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, TENANT CAN CHALLENGE TAX ASSESSMENT. 26

THE TENANT (A NET LESSEE), WHICH WAS OBLIGATED BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES, CAN CHALLENGE A PROPERTY-TAX ASSESSMENT BY FILING A GRIEVANCE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 524 (3); THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD RULED ONLY THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD CHALLENGE THE ASSESSMENT (CT APP). 26

RE-COMMENCEMENT OF DISMISSED LAWSUIT. 27

ONLY THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CPLR 205 (A) WHICH ALLOWS RE-COMMENCEMENT OF A LAWSUIT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF A DISMISSAL WHICH WAS NOT ON THE MERITS (CT APP). 27

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, INSANITY TOLL. 28

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INCAPACITATED PERSON (IP) WAS “INSANE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CPLR WHEN HE WAS REPRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY MUST BE DETERMINED AT THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL; IF THE IP WAS INSANE, THE MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL BE TOLLED; IF NOT THE MALPRACTICE ACTION IS UNTIMELY (FIRST DEPT). 28

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, INADEQUATE RECORD FOR APPEAL. 29

THE BOARD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS DECISION TO DENY COVERAGE OF MEDICAL BILLS ON THE GROUND THEY WERE NOT CAUSALLY RELATED TO CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL CONDITION, MAKING APPELLATE REVIEW IMPOSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). 29