You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT DOCUMENTS WITH ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined petitioner’s motion for leave to renew was properly denied. The context was an action by a municipal employee, a senior tree pruner, arguing that he was entitled to a hearing before termination because of his status as a member of a volunteer fire department (an “exempt firefighter”). Petitioner’s attempt to present evidence of the “exempt firefighter” status in a motion to renew was rejected:

“In general, a motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” … . However, “[t]he requirement that a motion for renewal be based on new facts is a flexible one” … . The new or additional facts presented “either must have not been known to the party seeking renewal or may, in the Supreme Court’s discretion, be based on facts known to the party seeking renewal at the time of the original motion” … . “However, in either instance, a reasonable justification’ for the failure to present such facts on the original motion must be presented” … .

” [T]he Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion'” … . A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation… .  Here, we agree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the petitioner failed to offer a reasonable justification for his failure to present the documents relating to his status as an “exempt” firefighter in opposition to the original motion to dismiss. Matter of Serviss v Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park, 2018 NY Slip Op 05597, Second Dept 8-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT DOCUMENTS WITH ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2221 (NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT DOCUMENTS WITH ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/RENEW, MOTION TO (NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT DOCUMENTS WITH ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted. Infant plaintiff was allegedly injured when he tripped and fell over a discarded metal frame on village property. The court noted that the mother’s derivative cause of action was time-barred because the infancy toll of the statute of limitations did not apply to her:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the petition which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the Village on behalf of the mother in her individual capacity, as the statute of limitations for her derivative cause of action had expired at the time the proceeding was commenced … . The infancy toll (see CPLR 208) is personal to the infant and does not extend to a parent’s derivative cause of action … . Matter of R.N. v Village of New Sq., 2018 NY Slip Op 05595, Second Dept 8-1-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MUNICIPAL LAW, INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INFANCY TOLL (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, (INFANCY TOLL OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTHER’S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that evidence submitted for the first time in reply papers was properly not considered. The context was a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim in a personal injury action. The evidence at issue was a supervisor’s report of injury and illness, presumably submitted to show the respondent’s awareness of petitioner’s injury. Matter of Murnane v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 05594, Second Dept 8-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))

,

SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN TO MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF A SEVERELY DISABLED PERSON, THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT AUTHORIZES THE APPOINTMENT, SURROGATE’S COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE PETITION SHOULD BE BROUGHT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that the petition under the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act seeking the appointment of a guardian should have been granted. Petitioner is the sister of a severely disable person, Anna. Petitioner established Anna could not care for herself and the appointment was necessary to manage Anna’s affairs. Surrogate’s Court erroneous dismissed the petition, finding that it should have been brought under the Mental Hygiene Law:

Pursuant to article 17-A of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act, “the court is authorized to appoint a guardian of the person [who is intellectually disabled] . . . if such appointment . . . is in the best interest of the person who is intellectually disabled.” Under the statutory scheme, a person is intellectually disabled if that person has been certified by, among other possibilities, one licensed physician and one licensed psychologist “as being incapable to manage him or herself and/or his or her affairs by reason of intellectual disability and that such condition is permanent in nature or likely to continue indefinitely” … .

Here, the record establishes that Anna is intellectually disabled within the meaning of Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act article 17-A. Further, the record also establishes that it would be in Anna’s best interest to have the petitioner appointed as her guardian. The record shows that Anna is incapable of providing for her most basic needs and that in the absence of court-authorized guardianship, the petitioner, Anna’s only sibling, is unable to adequately manage Anna’s affairs. Nothing in the record suggests that the petitioner is unqualified to act as Anna’s guardian. To the contrary, despite the legal limitations she has encountered, the petitioner has been managing Anna’s affairs and providing for Anna since their parents’ deaths. Matter of Anna F., 2018 NY Slip Op 05590, Second Dept 8-1-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (GUARDIANSHIP, SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN TO MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF A SEVERELY DISABLED PERSON, THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT AUTHORIZES THE APPOINTMENT, SURROGATE’S COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE PETITION SHOULD BE BROUGHT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT))/GUARDIANSHIP  (GUARDIANSHIP, SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN TO MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF A SEVERELY DISABLED PERSON, THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT AUTHORIZES THE APPOINTMENT, SURROGATE’S COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE PETITION SHOULD BE BROUGHT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (GUARDIANSHIP, SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN TO MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF A SEVERELY DISABLED PERSON, THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT AUTHORIZES THE APPOINTMENT, SURROGATE’S COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE PETITION SHOULD BE BROUGHT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict in this rear-end collision case were properly denied.  Plaintiff was stopped when the rear-end collision occurred. However, defendant demonstrated that he was unable to stop because of slippery conditions:

On his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that his vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle… . However, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a nonnegligent explanation; namely, an unavoidable skidding on a snow-covered road … . …

A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party … .

Here, in light of the defendant’s testimony regarding his speed and distance from the plaintiff’s vehicle just before the collision and the testimony that he immediately applied the brakes when the plaintiff’s brake lights illuminated but nonetheless was caused to skid by snowy road conditions, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences by which the jury could reach the conclusion that the defendant was not at fault in the happening of the accident … . Miller v Steinberg, 2018 NY Slip Op 05585, Second Dept 8-1-18

NEGLIGENCE (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REAR END COLLISIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

VIDEO SHOWED ELEVATOR DOORS OPERATED PROPERLY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY FROM DOORS CLOSING ON HER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO HOTEL AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the defendants, a hotel and elevator maintenance company, were entitled to summary judgment in this elevator-injury case. Plaintiff alleged she was injured when the doors of a freight elevator closed on her. A video showed that the doors remained open for the programmed period of time (20 seconds), plaintiff attempted to get off the elevator at the end of the 20 second period, and the doors retracted as soon as they came into contact with the plaintiff:

“A property owner can be held liable for an elevator-related injury where there is a defect in the elevator, and the property owner has actual or constructive notice of the defect, or where it fails to notify the elevator company with which it has a maintenance and repair contract about a known defect” … . “An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition can also be held liable to an injured passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found'” … . …

[The] evidence established that the elevator operated properly and was not defective, and that the defendants lacked actual or constructive notice of any alleged defective condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . Hussey v Hilton Worldwide, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05581, Second Dept 8-1-18

NEGLIGENCE (VIDEO SHOWED ELEVATOR DOORS OPERATED PROPERLY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY FROM DOORS CLOSING ON HER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO HOTEL AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY (SECOND DEPT))/ELEVATORS (VIDEO SHOWED ELEVATOR DOORS OPERATED PROPERLY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY FROM DOORS CLOSING ON HER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO HOTEL AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY (SECOND DEPT))

RAISED PORTION OF A FLOOR MAT WAS NOT A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the alleged raised area of a floor mat was not trivial as a matter of law:

The plaintiff gave deposition testimony to the effect that she tripped and fell over a raised portion of a rubber mat near the entrance of the supermarket. The plaintiff’s husband testified at his deposition that the raised portion of the mat was “two fat fingers high.” The defendants’ store manager testified at his deposition that the bump in the mat was about half an inch high. …

In determining a motion for summary judgment, a court is generally limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion … . Here, the Supreme Court should not have granted the motion on the ground that the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall, since the issue was not raised by the defendants in their motion papers. In any event, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall … .

Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants, including a surveillance footage of the incident, was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the condition of the mat was trivial as a matter of law and therefore not actionable … . Green v Price Chopper, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05578, Second Dept 8-1-18

NEGLIGENCE (RAISED PORTION OF A FLOOR MAT WAS NOT A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (RAISED PORTION OF A FLOOR MAT WAS NOT A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/TRIVIAL DEFECT (SLIP AND FALL, RAISED PORTION OF A FLOOR MAT WAS NOT A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF MOTHER AS GUARDIAN OF FRITZ, A PERSON SUFFERING FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA, HOWEVER MOTHER IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING ANY APPROPRIATE ASSISTANCE FOR FRITZ (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the petition for an the appointment of a guardian for Fritz, a person suffering from schizophrenia, should not have been granted on the evidence presented:

The Supreme Court may appoint a guardian for a person if the court determines that the appointment is necessary to provide for the person’s personal needs or to manage his or her property and financial affairs, and the person either agrees to the appointment or is incapacitated … . In determining whether the appointment of a guardian is necessary, the court must consider the report of a court evaluator as well as the sufficiency and reliability of resources that may be available to provide for personal needs or property management absent the appointment of a guardian … . A determination of incapacity must be based on clear and convincing evidence and must consist of a determination that a person is likely to suffer harm because he or she is unable to provide for personal needs or property management and cannot adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of such inability … . Moreover, a guardian should be appointed only as a last resort, where no available resources or other alternative will adequately protect the alleged incapacitated person … .

Here, the evidence at the hearing consisted only of the petitioner’s (Fritz’s mother’s) testimony regarding Fritz G.’s mental illness, and a cursory report and testimony of the court evaluator, who had only one brief conversation with Fritz G. by telephone. This evidence failed to establish that Fritz G. was incapacitated. Moreover, the Supreme Court failed to consider less restrictive options than appointment of a guardian. Accordingly, that branch of the petition which was to have the petitioner appointed as the guardian of the person of Fritz G. should have been denied. Nevertheless, it was clear from the petitioner’s testimony that Fritz G. is in need of assistance, and the parties’ attorneys specifically mentioned the possibility of assisted outpatient treatment to address those needs. The petitioner’s failure to establish, on this record, the necessity of Mental Hygiene Law article 81 guardianship does not preclude her from seeking any appropriate assistance for Fritz G. Matter of Fritz G., 2018 NY Slip Op 05592, Second Dept 8-1-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF MOTHER AS GUARDIAN OF FRITZ, A PERSON SUFFERING FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA, HOWEVER MOTHER IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING ANY APPROPRIATE ASSISTANCE FOR FRITZ (SECOND DEPT))/GUARDIANSHIP (EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF MOTHER AS GUARDIAN OF FRITZ, A PERSON SUFFERING FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA, HOWEVER MOTHER IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING ANY APPROPRIATE ASSISTANCE FOR FRITZ (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a release, which purported to cover future actions in a medical malpractice suit resulting from a hospital (NSUH) admission, did not preclude a second suit that arose from a second hospital admission:

The parties settled Action No. 1 … and executed … a release that released NSUH “and all . . . related business entities . . . and all . . . employees, physicians, [and] servants, . . . from all past, present and future [*2]claims, demands, obligations, actions, causes of action, wrongful death or bodily or personal injury claims . . . of any kind whatsoever, whether known or unknown, based upon any legal or equitable theory, . . . which the RELEASORS, their heirs, executors, administrators . . . hereafter can, shall, or may now have, or may hereafter accrue or otherwise be acquired, against RELEASEES for, upon, or by reason or any actual or alleged act, omission, transaction, practice, conduct, occurrence, or other matter . . . from the beginning of the world to the day of the date of this RELEASE” (hereinafter the release). * * *

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, NSUH failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the release executed by the parties settling Action No. 1 was intended to preclude the plaintiff from recovering for claims that allegedly arose during and as a result of the second admission, which were not yet in dispute at the time the release was executed … . While the plaintiff may have been aware of the incident giving rise to Action No. 2 when she signed the release, any such awareness is insufficient, itself, to establish that the release was intended to cover any potential claims which were not the subject of Action No. 1. Chiappone v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05569, Second Dept 8-1-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT (RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASE (RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination action was properly dismissed on collateral estoppel grounds. Plaintiff had brought a discrimination action in federal court which was dismissed. The Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) causes of action in state court, alleging the same facts as alleged in the federal case, were therefore properly dismissed. Defendants were not entitled to dismissal of the breach of contract and quantum meruit causes of action. Because the defendants submitted evidence in support of their motion to dismiss , the motion court treated it as a motion for summary judgment (before issue was joined). The court noted that defendants did not make out a prima facie case in their motion papers. Therefore the sufficiency of plaintiff’s papers need not be considered. The court also explained that where there is a question about the existence of a contract, a quantum meruit cause of action may be brought and the plaintiff is not required to elect his or her remedies:

Here, the factual determinations made by the federal courts with regard to the causes of action alleging discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII were determinative of the plaintiff’s identical claims asserted in this action pursuant to NYCHRL

CPLR 3211(c) provides, “[u]pon the hearing of a motion made under subdivision (a) or (b), either party may submit any evidence that could properly be considered on a motion for summary judgment. Whether or not issue has been joined, the court, after adequate notice to the parties, may treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment.” Although the path the defendants took in moving pursuant to CPLR 3211(c) was procedurally questionable, they charted their own course in this instance. There was no need to give the plaintiff an opportunity to file additional papers because the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by failing to tender sufficient evidence to eliminate any issues of fact with respect to those causes of action. Accordingly, the defendants were properly denied summary judgment, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers … . Karimian v Time Equities, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05583, Second Dept 8-1-18

EMPLOYMENT LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (C) (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND DEPT))/QUANTUM MERUIT (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THE SAME AS IN A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, PRE-ANSWER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (c) PROPERLY DENIED, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUANTUM MERUIT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY PLED (SECOND 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