You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department found that a defendant company, IAI, which operates in Israel, was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York under the theory that defendant IAINA, which operates in New York, was a department of IAI. The court explained the relevant criteria. The court further held that a common interest privilege (with respect to alleged defamatory remarks regarding the plaintiff, defendant IAINA’s employee) does not insulate defendant from the alleged breach of a contractual non-disparagement clause:

Defendants established that IAI North America, Inc. (IAINA), which does business in the State of New York, is not a mere department of IAI, which operates primarily in Israel, and therefore that jurisdiction over IAINA is not jurisdiction over IAI … . The key executive personnel of the subsidiary were not assigned to their positions by the foreign parent, the subsidiary trained its own personnel, the parent did not write and publish all of the sales literature used by the subsidiary, and the subsidiary prepared its own financial statements … . … While IAINA is a wholly owned subsidiary of IAI, common ownership is “intrinsic to the parent-subsidiary relationship and, by [itself], not determinative”… . IAINA showed that it observed corporate formalities. Nothing in plaintiff’s affirmation indicates that IAI interferes in the selection and assignment of IAINA’s executive personnel, and the CEO of IAINA denied this. He also denied that IAI controlled IAINA’s marketing and operational policies. Plaintiff claimed that IAI had control over the approval of IAINA’s annual budget during the 11 years he worked at IAINA. However, this does not suffice … . …

IAINA … contends that the cause of action for breach of a non-disparagement clause should be dismissed because, even if it made disparaging remarks about plaintiff (its former employee), the remarks were privileged. However, the common interest privilege it relies on — which is part of the law of defamation — does not apply to a claim for breach of a non-disparagement clause … . Wolberg v IAI N. Am., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03321, First Dept 5-8-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, CORPORATIONS, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATIONS (JURISDICTION, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/DEFAMATION (NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (DEFAMATION, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (DEFAMATION, NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, COMMON INTEREST,  A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue should not have been granted. Although defendant foreign corporation did not have a place of business in New York County, it had designated New York County as the location of its business in its filing with the Secretary of State:

Wakefern, a foreign corporation, submitted a copy of its application for authorization to conduct business filed with the Secretary of State, in which it identified New York County as “[t]he county within this state where its office is to be located” … . Wakefern’s designation of New York County in its application is controlling for venue purposes, even if it does not actually have an office in New York County … . Janis v Janson Supermarkets LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03333, First Dept 5-8-18

CORPORATION LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (VENUE, CORPORATION LAW,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/VENUE (CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/FOREIGN CORPORATIONS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined law office failure was not sufficient to justify granting plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the default judgment:

… [P]laintiffs’ counsel affirmed that he had timely prepared opposition papers, but due to law office failure, the nature of which counsel failed to describe in any detail, the papers were never filed. Counsel affirmed that he was under the impression the motion was still being considered by the court when he happened to discover the default order. He further affirmed that, despite defendants’ sworn affidavits of service, he was never served with the notices of entry of the default order.

Here, in addition to the untimeliness of this CPLR 5015 motion to vacate, the bare and unsubstantiated assertions of law office failure are insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for the default … . Moreover, the record shows that plaintiffs had a prior pattern of dilatory conduct, indicating that the default was not an excusable isolated event or inadvertent error … Because plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable excuse for the default, it is unnecessary to address whether they demonstrated a meritorious cause of action … . Fernandez v Santos, 2018 NY Slip Op 03326, First Dept 5-8-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE, LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (DEFAULT,  MOTION TO VACATE, LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE ( LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE, LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BECAUSE A SURREPLY WAS ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that essential evidence in reply papers was properly considered by the court because a surreply was allowed:

 … [T]o support amending a personal injury complaint to add a cause of action for wrongful death, plaintiffs were required to submit “competent medical proof of the causal connection between the alleged malpractice and the death of the original plaintiff” … . The affirmation of plaintiffs’ expert, which stated that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty the decedent’s injury led to his death, was sufficient, for the purposes of CPLR 3025(b), to establish a causal connection between the decedent’s death and the originally alleged negligence by defendants … . Plaintiff’s submission of the expert’s affirmation on reply is not fatal to the motion, because defendant was permitted to submit a surreply. Frangiadakis v 51 W. 81st St. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03331, First Dept 5-8-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BECAUSE A SURREPLY WAS ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BECAUSE A SURREPLY WAS ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT))

STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON PROOF OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS AND NO REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS OR PROBLEMS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant retail store’s (Macy’s) motion for summary judgment in this escalator slip and fall case should have been granted. Proof that the escalator was regularly maintained and inspected and there were no reports of accidents or problems warranted summary judgment and the plaintiff’s claims that the escalator was wet and the rubber handrail pulled up did not raise a question of fact:

Macy’s submitted, inter alia, deposition testimony of two of its employees, as well as the records of maintenance and inspections of the escalator by defendant Thyssenkrupp Corp. and the New York City Department of Buildings. Such evidence showed that the escalator was regularly maintained and inspected during the years prior to plaintiff’s accident, and there were never any reports of accidents or other problems with the escalator… .

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable of fact. Plaintiff’s wife’s hearsay statement that the stairs were wet does not indicate that they were wet long enough for Macy’s to have notice of the condition. Similarly, plaintiff’s testimony that the rubber handrail pulled up when he grasped at it as he slipped, does not raise an issue of fact that any such defect existed long enough for Macy’s to have notice, particularly since there were no prior complaints and in light of the evidence of regular maintenance and City inspections showing no problems .. . Furthermore, the opinion of plaintiff’s expert engineer that the wooden escalator treads were more slippery than industry safety standards permit does not raise an issue of fact. Ahmed v Macy’s Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03231, First Dept 5-3-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON PROOF OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS AND NO REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS OR PROBLEMS (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ESCALATORS, STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON PROOF OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS AND NO REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS OR PROBLEMS (FIRST DEPT))/ESCALATORS (SLIP AND FALL,  STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON PROOF OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS AND NO REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS OR PROBLEMS (FIRST DEPT))

,

FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE PROVISION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT FOREIGN RRG DID NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH NEW YORK’S STATUTORY TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, in a matter of first impression, determined that federal law, the Liability Risk Retention Act (LRRA), preempted New York’s Insurance Law section 3420(d)(2). Therefore defendant foreign risk retention group (RRG) [Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group LLC (PCIC)], did not need to comply with the timely notice of disclaimer requirement of Insurance Law 3420(d)(2). Plaintiff general contractor, Nadkos, sued PCIC because PCIC claimed it had no duty to defend Nadkos in a construction-accident personal injury case brought by a subcontractor and PCIC had not provided the timely notice of disclaimer required by New York’s Insurance Law. The legal argument is complex and no attempt to fairly summarize it is made here:

Application of Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) to PCIC or to any other RRG would directly or indirectly regulate these groups in violation of 15 USC § 3902(a)(1). Section 3420(d)(2) alters the rights and obligations of the carrier and insured under the policy by creating additional rights for the injured party, that is not contemplated by the LRRA and not required by all other states. …

This heightened standard requirement in New York impairs an RRG’s ability to operate on a nationwide basis “without being compelled to tailor their policies to the specific requirements of every state in which they do business”… . As Congress has chosen to limit the power of nondomiciliary states to regulate RRGs, the LRRA clearly preempts Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2). Nadkos, Inc. v Preferred Contrs. Ins. Co. Risk Retention Group LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03242, First Dept 5-3-18

​INSURANCE LAW (FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE PROVISION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT FOREIGN RRG DID NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH NEW YORK’S STATUTORY TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT))/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE PROVISION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT FOREIGN RRG DID NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH NEW YORK’S STATUTORY TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT))/PREEMPTION (INSURANCE LAW, FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE PROVISION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT FOREIGN RRG DID NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH NEW YORK’S STATUTORY TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT))/RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG)  (INSURANCE LAW, FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE PROVISION, THEREFORE DEFENDAN

FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO COVERAGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined no-fault claimants’ failure to attend independent medical examinations (IME’s) was a absolute defense to coverage:

When an individual submits a personal injury claim for motor vehicle no-fault benefits, the insurance company may request that the individual submit to an IME, and if the individual fails to appear for that IME, it “constitutes a breach of a condition precedent vitiating coverage” … . Here, plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the letters sent to each claimant notifying them about the date, time, and location of the initially scheduled IME and a second scheduled IME and affidavits of service for these letters. Plaintiff also submitted affidavits from each medical professional assigned to conduct the scheduled IME, with each stating that the medical professional was in his or her office at the date and time of the scheduled IME, the respective claimant failed to appear, the appointment was kept open until the end of the day, and at the end of the day, the medical professional filled out the affidavit acknowledging the nonappearance.

Because Hereford sent the notices scheduling the IMEs prior to the receipt of each of the claims, the notification requirements for verification requests under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 and 65-3.6 do not apply … . Furthermore, plaintiff was not required “to demonstrate that the claims were timely disclaimed since the failure to attend medical exams was an absolute coverage defense” … . Hereford Ins. Co. v Lida’s Med. Supply, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03226, First Dept 5-3-18

​INSURANCE LAW (FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO COVERAGE (FIRST DEPT))/NO-FAULT INSURANCE (FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO COVERAGE (FIRST DEPT))/INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS (IME)  (FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO COVERAGE (FIRST DEPT))/IME (FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO COVERAGE (FIRST DEPT))

,

COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the court, in awarding summary judgment to plaintiff, properly relied upon unsigned copies of the transcript of the deposition testimony of defendant’s witness because the defendant failed to return signed copies within 60 days and did not challenge the accuracy of the transcript (CPLR 3116(a)). Shackman v 400 E. 85th St. Realty Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03223, First Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS, COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS, COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))/DEPOSITIONS (UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPTS, EVIDENCE, COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))/UNSIGNED DEPOSITIONS ( COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3116(a) (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS, COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT))

JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that the “John Doe” defendant named in a timely filed complaint did not refer to the limited liability company named in the complaint filed after the statute of limitations had run:

The motion court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was served after the statutory limitations period had expired. Plaintiff’s claims arose on January 14, 2008. The original complaint in this action, which was filed on January 6, 2014 (just days before the six-year statute of limitations expired), did not name Stack’s LLC as a defendant, nor did it name defendant Stack’s LLC (Delaware). The amended complaint, which for the first time named Stack’s LLC (Delaware) as a defendant, was not filed until January 24, 2014 — more than a week after the statute had run. Plaintiff cannot properly rely on CPLR 1024 as a shield from the statute of limitations. Even assuming that the appellation “John Doe” referred to a corporation rather than a natural person, the complaint’s description of the John Doe defendant was not described in such a way as to fairly apprise Stack’s LLC (Delaware) that it was an intended defendant … . Thus, the inadequate description rendered the action jurisdictionally defective … . Markov v Stack’s LLC (Delaware), 2018 NY Slip Op 03238, First Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 1024 (JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/JOHN DOE (COMPLAINTS, (JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/COMPLAINTS  (JOHN DOE NAMED IN TIMELY COMPLAINT DID NOT REFER TO THE LLC NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue should have been granted;

The motion court exercised its discretion in an improvident manner in light of defendants’ demonstration that the convenience of material nonparty witnesses would be better served by the change … . Defendants submitted the affidavits of four first responders and plaintiff’s coworker, all of whom averred that they would testify as witnesses but would be inconvenienced by traveling to New York County. The accident occurred in Sullivan County, and other than one defendant’s registered principal place of business, and one of plaintiff’s physicians maintaining an office in the county, this matter has no contact with New York County (… . Plaintiff’s argument that the affidavits submitted by defendants were not sufficiently detailed is unpersuasive, and plaintiff offers nothing to rebut defendants’ assertions that his coworker, the first responders, and the sheriff who investigated the accident were material witnesses, as they averred in their affidavits … . Furthermore, plaintiff’s assertion that he has alleged violations of the Labor Law, and thus liability may be resolved prior to trial, is not relevant … . Taylor v Montreign Operating Co., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03222, First Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))/VENUE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))/WITNESSES, CONVENIENCE OF (VENUE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/VENUE  (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT))

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