You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANSWER TO DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO REFLECT THE NEW THEORY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Instead of answering the defendant’s expert opinion that the doctor’s actions were not the cause of the amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) which plaintiff alleged caused the death of plaintiff’s decedent, the plaintiff for the first time alleged the cause of death was septic shock, not AFE. Supreme Court erroneously denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and allowed plaintiff to amend the complaint to allege the new theory:

… [T]he defendant met his prima facie burden as to proximate cause by submitting the affidavit of an expert in maternal fetal medicine, who opined that any delay in the decedent undergoing an abortion procedure from the second trimester to the third trimester did not cause her to develop AFE. In opposition, the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendant’s prima facie showing, but rather alleged, for the first time, a new theory of causation, claiming that the decedent died of septic shock, not AFE. “A plaintiff cannot, for the first time in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, raise a new or materially different theory of recovery against a party from those pleaded in the complaint and the bill of particulars” … . …

“[O]nce discovery has been completed and the case has been certified as ready for trial, [a] party will not be permitted to amend the bill of particulars except upon a showing of special and extraordinary circumstances” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to show special and extraordinary circumstances in seeking leave to amend the complaint and the bill of particulars in response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, three years after the commencement of the action and almost six months after the filing of the note of issue. The plaintiff offered no reasonable excuse for relying solely on the medical examiner’s report and for failing to explore his new theory of causation earlier in the proceedings … . Moreover, permitting the amendment at this late stage of the proceedings would prejudice the defendant. Anonymous v Gleason, 2019 NY Slip Op 06207, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING IN THE CROSSWALK WHEN SHE WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S BUS MAKING A RIGHT TURN; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT PREMATURE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff was in the crosswalk when she was struck by defendant’s bus making a right turn:

The plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting her own affidavit and a certified copy of the police accident report, which demonstrated that she was walking within a crosswalk, with the pedestrian signal in her favor, when the defendants’ vehicle failed to yield the right-of-way and struck her … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to as to whether there was a non-negligent explanation for striking the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the plaintiff’s motion was not premature, as the defendants failed to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that additional discovery may lead to relevant evidence, or that facts essential to opposing the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff … . Rodriguez-Garcia v Bobby’s Bus Co., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06221, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

FIVE-DAY EXTENSION FOR A RESPONSE TO AN ANSWER SERVED BY MAIL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SENDER’S 60-DAY PERIOD TO MOVE TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined serving the answer by mail did not increase to 65 days the statutory 60-day period for a motion to dismiss. The five-day “service by mail” extension applies to a response to service by mail, not to any time-periods which apply to the sender:

The Legislature did not intend CPLR 2103 (b) (2) as a means by which a party could, as a general matter, extend its own time to make a motion. Instead, the Legislature enacted the provision to give the party responding to service by mail the full amount of the “responding period” provided for the doing of an act … . * * *

In the situation presented here … a defendant will always have the statutory 60 days to move for dismissal under CPLR 3211 (e), regardless of how it chooses to serve its answer. There is no delay in the defendant’s time to make its motion due to papers being in transit, and there is no necessary intervening event between the defendant’s service of its answer and its ability to move under CPLR 3211 (e). We hold that CPLR 2103 (b) (2) does not give the defendant the option to extend that period by another five days, as the legislative intent behind CPLR 2103 (b) (2) was to give an additional five days to a responding party. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Maniatopoulos, 2019 NY Slip Op 06184 [175 AD3d 575], Second Dept 8-21-19

 

DRIVER OF MIDDLE VEHICLE IN THIS THREE-CAR REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the middle driver, Budziak, in this three-car rear-end collision case was entitled to summary judgment:

“A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision to rebut the inference of negligence” … . ” Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation'” … . Thus, “[i]n a chain collision accident, the operator of the middle vehicle may establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the middle vehicle was properly stopped behind the lead vehicle when it was struck from behind by the rear vehicle and propelled into the lead vehicle” … .

Here, Budziak established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that she was stopped in traffic behind Hakimi’s vehicle when her vehicle was struck in the rear by Barnett’s vehicle and propelled into Hakimi’s vehicle … . Mihalatos v Barnett, 2019 NY Slip Op 06082, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BUS DRIVER RESPONDED REASONABLY UPON HEARING THE SIREN OF A FIRE TRUCK APPROACHING AN INTERSECTION; PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER, WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS DRIVER SLAMMED ON THE BRAKES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the bus driver reacted properly to an emergency. Plaintiff, a passenger, was injured when the bus suddenly braked to avoid a fire truck entering an intersection. There was a question whether the driver slowed down upon hearing the siren:

The evidence proffered in support of the defendants’ motion demonstrated, prima facie, that the operator of the bus was presented with an emergency situation, to wit, a fire truck that was entering the intersection against the traffic light, and that the operator acted as a reasonable person would under the circumstances … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff noted that the operator testified at her deposition that, as she approached the intersection, she heard a fire truck siren. Although the operator claimed she slowed down prior to reaching the intersection, the plaintiff testified at her deposition that the operator was driving “pretty fast” prior to the accident and that there was no change in speed. The operator’s alleged entry into the intersection without slowing down, after hearing sirens approaching the intersection, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the operator was faced with an emergency situation not of her own making and whether her actions in relation thereto were reasonable … . Liang-Ying Ren v Doe, 2019 NY Slip Op 06074, Second Dept 8-7-19

, ,

WHERE ARBITRABLE AND NONARBITRABLE CLAIMS ARE INTERTWINED, COURT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING THE ARBITRATION DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, under the terms of the employment contract, even if the matter involves both arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims, any court procedures should be stayed until the determination of the arbitrable issues:

Paragraph 4(b) of the consulting agreement, which addresses the defendant’s right to terminate the plaintiff’s retention for cause, ends with the following sentence: “Any dispute between the parties shall be resolved first by submitting same for mediation to AAA, and absent a resolution, then by a 3 member panel Arbitration through AAA.” …

The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 7503(a) to compel arbitration and to stay this action pending completion of the arbitration, invoking the above-quoted arbitration clause. The plaintiff opposed the motion on the grounds, inter alia, that the clause applied only to disputes relating to termination, and not to actions alleging breach of contract. Without conceding that the scope of the arbitration clause was limited to the resolution of disputes involving termination, the defendant argued that the reason the plaintiff was not paid was because it was terminated for cause. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals. …

“[W]here arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims are inextricably interwoven, the proper course is to stay judicial proceedings pending completion of the arbitration, particularly where the determination of issues in arbitration may well dispose of nonarbitrable matters”… . Even assuming, without deciding, that the only arbitrable dispute is whether the plaintiff was properly terminated for cause, judicial proceedings should be stayed until that issue is resolved, since that determination may also dispose of the plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action … . Lake Harbor Advisors, LLC v Settlement Servs. Arbitration & Mediation, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06073, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

, ,

THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDING UTTERLY REFUTED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN COERCED INTO SETTLING, THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants-attorneys’ motion to dismiss the complaint in this legal malpractice action should have been granted because the transcript of the settlement proceeding utterly refuted the allegations in the complaint. Plaintiff alleged it was coerced into settling the action:

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . …

A legal malpractice cause of action “is viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel” … .

In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the transcript of the court proceeding setting forth the terms of the settlement of the underlying action, which conclusively established that the plaintiff was not coerced into settling … . The plaintiff’s allegations that it was coerced into settling the underlying action were utterly refuted by the admissions of its principals during the settlement proceeding that they had discussed the terms of the settlement with their attorneys, understood the settlement terms, and had no questions about them; that they were entering into the settlement freely, of their own volition, and without undue influence or coercion; and that they were satisfied with their legal representation … . Glenwayne Dev. Corp v James J. Corbett, P.C., 2019 NY Slip Op 06069, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE BETTER PRACTICE IS TO SUBMIT A SEPARATE AFFIRMATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S PRIMARY AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT TO A VOCATIONAL EXAM DESCRIBED THE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE, THE MOTION TO COMPEL WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court was not required to deny defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to submit to a vocational exam because defense counsel did not submit a separate affirmation demonstrating a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. The requirements of 22 NYCRR 202,7 (c) were met in the primary affirmation submitted is support of the motion. The Second Department also determined the plaintiff was properly ordered to submit to a vocational rehabilitation examination in this Labor Law personal injury action:

… [T]he Supreme Court was not required to deny that branch of the defendants’ motion on the ground that the defendant failed to submit an affirmation attesting to a good faith pre-motion attempt to resolve the dispute with the plaintiff. While it may be the better practice for the movant to detail such good faith efforts in an affirmation separate from the affirmation addressing the merits of the motion, under the circumstances of this case, the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.7(c) were satisfied by the primary affirmation of counsel submitted in support of the motion wherein counsel detailed her efforts to obtain the plaintiff’s compliance with the extant court order, including the failure of the plaintiff to appear for a duly noticed examination and the failure of the plaintiff’s counsel to respond to correspondence, submitted with the defendants’ motion papers, seeking the plaintiff’s voluntary cooperation. Thus, the defendants amply demonstrated that the plaintiff was refusing to voluntarily cooperate with a court-ordered examination … . …

… [T]he plaintiff was noticed and directed to appear for a medical examination to be conducted by a vocational rehabilitation specialist on February 26, 2018. The plaintiff failed to respond to the notice or appear for the examination. Given the nature of this action and the parties’ past discovery disputes, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the plaintiff to submit to a vocational rehabilitation examination … . Encalada v Riverside Retail, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06066, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RELATING TO DISCLOSURE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL’S AFFIRMATION DEMONSTRATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION, THE CROSS-MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendants’ cross-motion for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 relating to disclosure should not have been granted. The cross-motion was not accompanied by defense counsel’s affirmation demonstrating a good faith effort to resolve the issues addressed by the motion:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7(a) and (c), a motion relating to disclosure must be accompanied by an affirmation from moving counsel attesting to a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion, including the time, place and nature of the consultation as well as the issues discussed. Here, the affirmation of good faith submitted by the defendants’ counsel in support of the cross motion for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 failed to provide any detail of the claimed efforts to resolve the issues. While the defendants’ counsel asserted that he had conversations with the plaintiff’s counsel, he did not identify the dates of such conversations or the name of the attorney with whom he conversed. Therefore, the cross motion should have been denied … . Bronstein v Charm City Hous., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06058, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT BY A FIREFIGHTER PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, CRITERIA FOR SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT EXPLAINED IN DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s setting aside the verdict in this personal injury action brought by a firefighter pursuant to General Municipal Law 205-a and Labor Law 27-a. The firefighter alleged he tripped over a torn rug in the fire department office. The torn rug violated provisions of the NYC Administrative Code. The Second Department took great pains to explain the criteria for setting aside a verdict as a matter of law and as against the weight of the evidence pursuant to CPLR 4404:

Although there were no other individuals present when the plaintiff fell, his supervisor immediately responded to “the loud bang” that resulted from the accident. The plaintiff’s supervisor prepared a report that morning, which stated that the plaintiff had tripped on a piece of loose rug. Another one of the plaintiff’s supervisors testified that he responded to the location of the accident and observed “a ripped carpet there.” Photographs of the tear in the carpet that caused the plaintiff to fall were admitted into evidence and identified by the plaintiff’s witnesses. * * *

The plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident, he felt a “popping in [his] leg.” A doctor who examined the plaintiff after the accident, Leonard Harrison, testified that the plaintiff tore his hamstring as the result of the subject accident.

The City did not present any evidence to show that the plaintiff’s accident was caused by something other than the tear in the carpet, or that the accident did not occur at all. Although the jury was not required, as a matter of law, to credit the plaintiff’s uncontradicted testimony …  the City’s efforts to impeach the plaintiff as to the cause of the accident were particularly weak.  * * *

Despite the City’s attacks, the plaintiff’s testimony as to the cause of the accident was consistent throughout the course of the trial. Moreover, his testimony regarding the cause of the accident was consistent with the testimony he gave at his deposition, in which he repeatedly testified that “[his] foot got caught on a piece of torn rug, where [he] los[t] [his] balance and tripped.” The plaintiff’s trial testimony was also consistent with the reports he gave to his supervisor and to doctors shortly after the accident occurred.

On this record, any conclusion that the plaintiff’s accident was the result of some other unidentified cause, or that the entire incident was fabricated, could only be based upon mere speculation … . Annunziata v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 06055, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

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