Civil Procedure Update January 2020

Civil Procedure Update January 2020

Course #MSC1173 (Nontransitional) Prerecorded Audio (On Demand/Recorded-Audio)

Hybrid Accreditation for September 2, 2020, through December 31, 2021

This Course Is Appropriate for Experienced Attorneys

Areas of Professional Practice: 0.5 CLE Credit Hour

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 January 1, 2020 and January 31, 2020 which address issues in “Civil Procedure.” Similar 1/2-to 1-hour CLE courses are continuously being submitted for approval to the NYS CLE Board for each month from January 2019 to the present, to provide readers with CLE credit simply for keeping up to date with the latest appellate decisions.

The “Civil Procedure” decision-summaries posted weekly on the New York Appellate Digest website are organized in monthly pamphlets which are accessed in the “Update Service.” The monthly pamphlets comprise the written materials for these monthly CLE courses. A link to the written materials for this course (“Civil Procedure Update Pamphlet January 2020”) is provided below.

As you listen to the course, you will hear a verification code. After finishing the course, print and fill out the attached “Attorney Affirmation,” including the verification code, 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). 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 0.5 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 links below for the written materials (“Civil Procedure Update Pamphlet January 2020”), the “Attorney Affirmation” (the “verification code” form) and the “Evaluation Survey.”

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

Civil Procedure Update Pamphlet January 2020

Civil Procedure Update January 2020 Attorney Affirmation

Civil Procedure Update January 2020 Evaluation Survey

Topics Covered in the “Civil Procedure Update January 2020” Course Are Described Below (the podcast may not address every case in the written materials); Page Numbers Refer to the Written Materials, i.e., the “Civil Procedure Update Pamphlet January 2020”

AFFIDAVITS, OUT-OF-STATE EXPERT.

STATEMENT FROM PLAINTIFF’S OUT-OF-STATE EXPERT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; CPLR 2106 REQUIRES A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM A DENTIST LICENSED IN ANOTHER STATE (SECOND DEPT). 6

APPEALS.

THE INTERIM DECISION ISSUED BY SUPREME COURT WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ORDER; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT). 6

BILLS OF PARTICULARS.

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS REINSTATED AGAINST SEVERAL DEFENDANTS; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE ACTIONS WERE REINSTATED BASED UPON A NEW THEORY WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FOURTH DEPT). 7

CLASS ACTIONS, LABOR LAW.

PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 196-d AGAINST A CORPORATE OFFICER AND A SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUALLY FOR FAILING TO REMIT SERVICE CHARGES AND GRATUITIES TO THEIR WAITSTAFF EMPLOYEES; REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION TO SEEK CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT). 8

CLASS ACTIONS, LANDLORD-TENANT.

CLASS ACTION AGAINST NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR BREACH OF THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY RE: LOSS OF HEAT AND/OR HOT WATER GOES FORWARD (FIRST DEPT). 9

DEFAULT, WAIVER OF DEFENSES.

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO ANSWER THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAIVED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT). 10

HEARING REQUIRED, FAMILY LAW.

THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE RULINGS IN THIS CUSTODY/PARENTAL ACCESS CASE, HEARINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT). 11

INCONSISTENT VERDICT.

JURY CONFUSION AND THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL; EVEN A WORKER AUTHORIZED TO BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF AN EXCAVATOR BUCKET CAN CLAIM THE PROTECTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS WORK IN AN AREA WHERE A WORKER MAY BE STRUCK BY EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT (SECOND DEPT). 12

INTERVENTION, STANDING, FORECLOSURE.

PARTY WHICH PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AFTER FORECLOSURE WAS COMMENCED WAS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS BUT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ALLEGE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS; THE ESTATE OF THE ORIGINAL BORROWER IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT). 13

JURISDICTION, FAMILY LAW.

NEITHER NEW YORK NOR PENNSYLVANIA IS THE HOME STATE OF THE CHILD IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO THE STATE; FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). 14

JURISDICTION, FAMILY LAW.

FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED IN PENNSYLVANIA, INFORMED FAMILY COURT HE WISHED TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE IN THE CUSTODY MATTER; FAMILY COURT DENIED THE REQUEST STATING THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT HELD FATHER, WHO HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO APPEAR BY PHONE (THIRD DEPT). 15

JURISDICTION, PARTY DID NOT RECEIVE OF MOTION PAPERS.

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S AFFIRMATION STATING HE NEVER RECEIVED THE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS NOT REBUTTED BY PLAINTIFF; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE MOTION AND THE RESULTING JUDGMENT WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). 15

JURISDICTION.

AFTER JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NEW YORK HAD JURISDICTION OVER THREE OF FOUR NEW JERSEY DEFENDANTS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; WITH RESPECT TO ONE NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT, THE JURISDICTION ISSUE MUST BE DECIDED BY THE JURY (FIRST DEPT). 16

MISLEADING THE COURT.

UPON LEARNING THE STATE, BY EFFECTIVELY MISLEADING THE COURT, OBTAINED A JUDGMENT DETERMINING IT OWNED LAND IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK, THE COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 5015 (THIRD DEPT). 17

MUNICIPAL LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT, NOT CITY, IS PROPER PARTY.

THE TIP OF PLAINTIFF THIRD-GRADER’S FINGER WAS SEVERED WHEN A DOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING SLAMMED SHUT; THE DEFENDANT-SCHOOL’S (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S [DOE’S]) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, THE SCHOOL HAD NO NOTICE OF A PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR, SUPERVISION COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT, AND NYC IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT ON SCHOOL (DOE) PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT). 18

PROHIBITION, WRIT OF, MISTRIAL.

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DECLARED A MISTRIAL TO ACCOMMODATE A JUROR’S WEEKEND PLANS; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED; RETRIAL BARRED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). 19

RENEW, MOTION TO.

MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). 20

SANCTIONS, DISCOVERY.

SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE TOO SEVERE, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDING PROOF OF COUNTERCLAIMS CENTRAL TO THE DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT). 20

SON OF SAM LAW.

PENSION OF POLICE OFFICER CONVICTED OF MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CAN, UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW, BE REACHED TO SATISFY A $1 MILLION JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY THE CRIME VICTIM (THIRD DEPT). 21

STANDING, DEFAULT, NOTICE, FORECLOSURE.

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING, DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; CRITERIA FOR PROVING EACH ISSUE EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT). 22

STANDING, FORECLOSURE.

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 23

STANDING, FORECLOSURE.

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). 23

STANDING, FORECLOSURE.

THE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT), 24

STANDING, RES JUDICATA, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, FORECLOSURE.

PLAINTIFF BANK’S PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING; RES JUDICATA DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE PRIOR ACTION WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT ACTION BECAUSE THE STANDING ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME (SECOND DEPT). 25

STATUTE OF FRAUDS, COMPLAINTS.

PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF AN ORAL CONTRACT REGARDING REPAYMENT OF A LOAN SECURED BY A NOTE AND MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS; THE FRAUD AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). 26

SUA SPONTE, CLASS ACTIONS.

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE NOT BEFORE IT; THE ORDER SETTLING A CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID WAGES AND OVERTIME SHOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED INVALID CERTAIN OPT-OUT STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND WERE NOT OTHERWISE BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT). 27

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, NEW THEORY RAISED IN OPPOSITION.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE; THE COURT NOTED THAT A THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT). 28

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, NEW THEORY RAISED IN OPPOSITION.

PLAINTIFFS CAN NOT RAISE A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). 29

SUMMARY JURY TRIALS, MISTRIAL.

TRIAL COURT’S DECLARING A MISTRIAL VIOLATED THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE SUMMARY JURY TRIAL RULES (FIRST DEPT). 29