You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

RECOVERY FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION FOR INJURY BY AN UNKNOWN DRIVER DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INJURY IS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT OR INTENTIONAL CONDUCT, NO RECOVERY FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM INTENTIONAL CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly ordered a framed issue hearing on the issue whether the injury to plaintiff bicyclist was caused by an “accident” or “intentional conduct” within the meaning of Article 52 of the Insurance Law. Plaintiff got into an argument with a driver and was then struck by the driver’s car. The driver’s identity is not known so plaintiff sought recovery from the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC). The Second Department held that the issue was not controlled by the recent Court of Appeals decision which found that an intentional act by a driver could be seen as an “accident” from the perspective of the injured person. In that Court of Appeals case (State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Langan, 16 NY3d 349) the injured person was seeking recovery from the insurer under the injured person’s own policy. Here the plaintiff was seeking recovery from the MVAIC and there can be no recovery from the MVAIC for injury resulting from intentional conduct:

Article 52 of the Insurance Law (“motor vehicle accident indemnification act”) seeks to provide “for the payment of loss on account of injury to or death of persons who, through no fault of their own, were involved in motor vehicle accidents caused by” vehicles that, for a variety of reasons, are not covered by insurance (Insurance Law § 5201[b]). Article 52 does not, however, cover incidents that are the result of intentional conduct by a tortfeasor, because those incidents are not caused “by accident” … . …

The Court of Appeals [in Langan] held that where recovery was sought from the insurer under the insured’s own policy, the determination of whether the incident constituted an “accident” was to be viewed from the perspective of the innocent insured, rather than of the tortfeasor: “the intentional assault of an innocent insured is an accident within the meaning of his or her own policy. The occurrence at issue was clearly an accident from the insured’s point of view” … . The Court distinguished McCarthy v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (16 AD2d at 41), where recovery was sought from a state fund administered by the MVAIC… . Here, as in McCarthy, the petitioner seeks to recover from the state fund administered by the MVAIC, and not from an insurer under an insurance policy as in Langan. Castillo v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03502, Second Dept 5-16-18

​INSURANCE LAW (RECOVERY FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION FOR INJURY BY AN UNKNOWN DRIVER DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INJURY IS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT OR INTENTIONAL CONDUCT, NO RECOVERY FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM INTENTIONAL CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT))/MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION  (RECOVERY FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION FOR INJURY BY AN UNKNOWN DRIVER DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INJURY IS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT OR INTENTIONAL CONDUCT, NO RECOVERY FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM INTENTIONAL CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT))/ACCIDENT (INSURANCE LAW, RECOVERY FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION FOR INJURY BY AN UNKNOWN DRIVER DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INJURY IS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT OR INTENTIONAL CONDUCT, NO RECOVERY FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM INTENTIONAL CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT))/INTENTIONAL CONDUCT  (INSURANCE LAW, RECOVERY FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION FOR INJURY BY AN UNKNOWN DRIVER DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INJURY IS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT OR INTENTIONAL CONDUCT, NO RECOVERY FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM INTENTIONAL CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INSURANCE LAW, RECOVERY FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION FOR INJURY BY AN UNKNOWN DRIVER DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INJURY IS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT OR INTENTIONAL CONDUCT, NO RECOVERY FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM INTENTIONAL CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT))/BICYCLISTS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INSURANCE LAW, RECOVERY FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION FOR INJURY BY AN UNKNOWN DRIVER DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INJURY IS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT OR INTENTIONAL CONDUCT, NO RECOVERY FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM INTENTIONAL CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT))

,

FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY STEPS TOWARD OBTAINING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure complaint should not have been dismissed on the ground that the bank had not taken proceedings for the entry of a default judgment within a year of defendants’ default. It was enough that the bank took preliminary steps toward obtaining a default judgment within the year:

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” “It is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . “Rather, it is enough that the plaintiff timely takes the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference’ to establish that it initiated proceedings for entry of a judgment within one year of the default’ for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c)” … . Here, the plaintiff took the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference … within one year of the defendants’ default and, thus, did not abandon the action … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Delisser, 2018 NY Slip Op 03504, Second Dept 5-16-18

​FORECLOSURE (DEFAULT, FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY STEPS TOWARD OBTAINING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT, FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY STEPS TOWARD OBTAINING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3315 (DEFAULT, FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY STEPS TOWARD OBTAINING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY STEPS TOWARD OBTAINING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT))

,

IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE HAD THE POWER TO CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT AND THE UNDERLYING DECISION BUT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE JUDGMENT BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in a divorce action, determined that the judge properly corrected a mistake in the judgment of divorce, but improperly made a change in the judgment based on new evidence:

… [T]he Supreme Court, sua sponte, directed the parties to appear … . … [T]he defendant and his counsel appeared, but the plaintiff failed to appear. The court expressed its concern about a letter it had received indicating that the defendant had failed to disclose a variable supplemental pension plan. The court further noted that the third decretal paragraph of the judgment did not reflect the intent expressed in the court’s underlying decision, inasmuch as the judgment failed to provide that changes in the value of the retirement assets since the commencement of the action were to be shared equally. An amended judgment was entered thereafter modifying so much of the third decretal paragraph of the original judgment as was necessary to conform the judgment to the underlying decision, and modifying the fourth decretal paragraph of the original judgment to include a reference to the previously undisclosed variable supplemental pension plan. The defendant appeals from the amended judgment.

The Supreme Court had the authority to modify the third decretal paragraph of the original judgment, given the discrepancy between the terms of that decretal paragraph and the underlying decision. “A judgment . . . must conform strictly to the court’s decision. Where there is an inconsistency between a judgment . . . and the decision upon which it is based, the decision controls” …

However, the Supreme Court was without authority, sua sponte, to modify the fourth decretal paragraph of the original judgment to add a reference to the variable supplemental pension plan, as this was a substantive modification based on new evidence that had not previously been submitted to the court. Such a modification goes beyond the court’s inherent authority to correct a “mistake, defect or irregularity” in the original judgment “not affecting a substantial right of a party” … . Mascia v Mascia, 2018 NY Slip Op 03523, Second Dept 5-16-18

​FAMILY LAW (JUDGMENTS, IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE HAD THE POWER TO CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT AND THE UNDERLYING DECISION BUT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE JUDGMENT BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGMENTS ( IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE HAD THE POWER TO CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT AND THE UNDERLYING DECISION BUT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE JUDGMENT BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE HAD THE POWER TO CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT AND THE UNDERLYING DECISION BUT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE JUDGMENT BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

,

AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, ATTORNEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH BILLING RULES AND NO EXPERT AFFIDAVITS WERE SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the award of attorney’s fees and expert witness fees in this divorce action was an abuse of discretion:

In a matrimonial action, an award of counsel fees is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court … . However, court rules impose certain requirements upon attorneys who represent clients in domestic relations matters … . These rules were designed to address abuses in the practice of matrimonial law and to protect the public, and the failure to substantially comply with the rules will preclude an attorney’s recovery of a fee from his or her client …  or from the adversary spouse … . A showing of substantial compliance must be made on a prima facie basis as part of the moving party’s papers … .

Here, the evidence proffered by the defendant in support of that branch of her motion which was for an award of counsel fees for work performed by Glynn demonstrates that Glynn failed to substantially comply with the rules requiring periodic billing statements at least every 60 days … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which pertains to Glynn’s counsel’s fees. …

“The award of expert witness fees in a matrimonial action is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and should be made upon a detailed showing of the services to be rendered and the estimated time involved”… . “Absent affidavits from the expert witnesses at issue, the Supreme Court lacks a sufficient basis to grant a motion for the award of such fees” …  Here, the defendant failed to submit such expert affidavits. Greco v Greco, 2018 NY Slip Op 03509, Second Dept 5-16-18

​FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE, ATTORNEY’S FEES, EXPERT WITNESS FEES, AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, ATTORNEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH BILLING RULES AND NO EXPERT AFFIDAVITS WERE SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (DIVORCE, ATTORNEY’S FEES, EXPERT WITNESS FEES, AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, ATTORNEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH BILLING RULES AND NO EXPERT AFFIDAVITS WERE SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS FEES (DIVORCE, EXPERT WITNESS FEES, AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, ATTORNEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH BILLING RULES AND NO EXPERT AFFIDAVITS WERE SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT WITNESSES (DIVORCE, ATTORNEY’S FEES, AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, ATTORNEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH BILLING RULES AND NO EXPERT AFFIDAVITS WERE SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))

DESPITE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND VISITATION WITH GRANDMOTHER WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined, despite the termination of mother’s parental rights, grandmother had standing to seek visitation with the child and visitation by the grandmother was in the bests interests of the child:

A biological grandparent may seek visitation with a child even after parental rights have been terminated or the child has been freed for adoption … . Where a grandparent seeks visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(1), the court must undertake a two-part inquiry … . First, the court must determine if the grandparent has standing to petition for visitation based on the death of a parent or equitable circumstances . Where the court concludes that the grandparent has established standing, the court must then determine whether visitation with the grandparent is in the best interests of the child … . In determining whether equitable circumstances confer standing, the court must examine all relevant facts … . “[A]n essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship” … . A grandparent must establish an existing relationship or sufficient efforts to establish one that have been unjustifiably frustrated by the parent … .

Here, the evidence demonstrated that the maternal grandmother developed a relationship with the child early on in her life and thereafter made repeated efforts to continue that relationship … . Accordingly, the Family Court’s determination that the grandmother lacked standing to seek visitation was not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Moreover, visitation with the grandmother would be in the child’s best interests. The grandmother had consistent visitation with the child until the DSS ceased allowing such visitation in November 2014. By all accounts, the grandmother’s visitations conducted separately from the mother’s visitations were positive, and the attorney for the child in the Family Court took the position that the child’s best interests would be served by visitation with the grandmother conditioned on the requirement that the mother not be present for the visitation … . Matter of Weiss v Weiss, 2018 NY Slip Op 03532, Second Dept 5-16-18

​FAMILY LAW (VISITATION, GRANDMOTHER, DESPITE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND VISITATION WITH GRANDMOTHER WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT))/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, GRANDMOTHER, DESPITE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND VISITATION WITH GRANDMOTHER WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT))/GRANDPARENTS (FAMILY LAW, VISITATION, DESPITE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND VISITATION WITH GRANDMOTHER WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant demonstrated his attorney never informed him the plea included an aggravated felony which made deportation mandatory:

A defendant has the right to the effective assistance of counsel before deciding whether to plead guilty … . “Under the federal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his or her attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different'” … . “Under the state standard . . . the constitutional requirements for the effective assistance of counsel are met when the defense attorney provides meaningful representation'”… . In cases asserting ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea context, a defendant must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he [or she] would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial”… , or “that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different” … .

Here, the defendant sufficiently alleged that defense counsel failed to fully inform him that a plea of guilty exposed him to mandatory removal from the United States and that, had he been so advised, a decision to reject the plea offer would have been rational … . People v Hungria, 2018 NY Slip Op 03545, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE  (DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT))

ALTERNATE JUROR’S PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department ordered a new trial for the defendant because an alternate juror deliberated with the other jurors. The trial judge attempted to fix the problem by having the jurors agree to start over and disregard the prior deliberations:

During the trial in this matter, an alternate juror briefly participated in deliberations with 11 sworn members of the jury while the12th sworn juror was absent from the jury room. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for a mistrial. The court then questioned each of the jurors about their ability to disregard the prior deliberations and start deliberations anew; each juror assured the court that he or she could do so. The court then denied the defendant’s renewed motion for a mistrial, and instructed the jurors that all deliberations that had taken place with the alternate juror were a nullity which must be disregarded by the jury, and that deliberations were to start “fresh, anew, ab initio, from the beginning.” After deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The defendant appeals.

The New York Constitution guarantees every criminal defendant a trial by jury … . The constitutional right to a jury trial “includes the right to a jury of 12” … . Pursuant to CPL 270.30, after the jury has retired to deliberate, the court must either, (1) with the consent of the defendant and the People, discharge the alternate jurors, or (2) direct the alternate jurors not to discuss the case and further direct that they be kept separate and apart from the regular jurors. CPL 310.10 prohibits anyone, including alternate jurors, from communicating with deliberating jurors.

The error here not only violated CPL 270.30 and 310.10, but it deprived the defendant of his fundamental right to a trial by a jury of 12 … .  The error was not cured by the Supreme Court’s instructions to the reconstituted jury. People v Davis, 2018 NY Slip Op 03539, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, ALTERNATE JUROR’S PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTERNATE JUROR’S PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/ALTERNATE JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTERNATE JUROR’S PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/DELIBERATIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, ALTERNATE JUROR’S PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIONS REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted the argument plaintiff did not allege in the bill of particulars that defendant hospital was vicariously liable for the actions of a physician (Devlin) was raised for the first time in reply papers and, therefore, should not have been considered by the motion court. The Second Department went on to find that the hospital’s motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not vicariously liable for Devlin’s actions should not have been granted. Whether Devlin acted as an agent for the hospital depended upon written agreements which were not submitted with the motion papers:

The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant, not to introduce new arguments or new grounds for the requested relief … . Since the plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to oppose the new argument in a surreply, the court should not have granted relief based upon that argument … .

… [T]he general rule is that a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the acts of a physician who is not an employee of the hospital, but is one of a group of independent contractors … . However, a hospital may be vicariously liable if a nonemployee physician acted as its agent or if it exercised control over the physician … . Here, Devlin was an intensivist employed by the defendant Nassau Chest Physicians, P.C. (hereinafter Nassau Chest Physicians), who cared for [plaintiff] in the Hospital’s intensive care unit after surgery was performed. She was the sole intensivist on duty for all four of the Hospital’s intensive care units during her shift. Devlin only worked at the Hospital; she did not work for Nassau Chest Physicians at any other site. The Hospital claimed that she was not under its control and not its agent. However, the Hospital’s relationship with Nassau Chest Physicians and Devlin’s relationship with Nassau Chest Physicians were governed by written agreements, and those written agreements were not submitted in support of the motion. Since the defendants failed to submit this or other evidence establishing, prima facie, that Devlin was not under the Hospital’s control and not its agent when she rendered care to Castro, they failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Castro v Durban, 2018 NY Slip Op 03503, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, VICARIOUS LIABILITY, ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))

LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined law office failure was not a sufficient excuse for plaintiff’s failure to enter a default judgment in an action which alleged defendants failed to pay plaintiff the statutory minimum wage:

“CPLR 3215(c) provides that [i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed'” … . This statute is strictly construed, as “[t]he language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory inasmuch as courts shall’ dismiss claims (CPLR 3215[c]) for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned” … . Moreover, CPLR 3215(c) expressly provides that a court may dismiss a complaint as abandoned “upon its own initiative or on motion.” The statute further provides, however, that the failure to timely seek a default may be excused if ” sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed'”… . To establish the sufficient cause required by CPLR 3215(c), “the party opposing dismissal must demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for the delay in taking proceedings for entry of a default judgment and that it has a potentially meritorious action” … . ” The determination of whether an excuse is reasonable in any given instance is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court'” … . While a court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse, such excuse must be supported by detailed allegations of fact explaining the law office failure … .

Here, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 2004 for an extension of time to move for the entry of a default judgment and, thereupon, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants. CPLR 2004 allows a court to “extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown.” “In exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004, a court may consider such factors as the length of the delay, the reason or excuse for the delay, and any prejudice to the opponent of the motion” … . …

The plaintiff’s excuse of law office failure did not rise to the level of a reasonable excuse, as it was vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated … . The excuse was contained in a brief paragraph in the supporting affirmation of an associate who stated, in sum and substance, that the attorney who commenced the action left the employ of the law firm of record, and the plaintiff’s file was only discovered in May 2016 when the firm was relocating its offices. There was no affirmation from a principal of the law firm and no indication in the associate’s affirmation that he had any personal knowledge of the purported law office failure or that he was even employed by the firm at the time it allegedly occurred. The one-year period to move for the entry of a default judgment lapsed in August 2015, and there is no indication that the attorney had left prior thereto. Ibrahim v Nablus Sweets Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03515, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS ( LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3215 (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2004 (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

ARGUMENTS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY REJECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that arguments first raised in reply papers were properly rejected:

After the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint … . … [T]he Supreme Court granted the defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the complaint … .

More than eight months later, the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment in her favor. After opposition papers were served, the plaintiff served a reply affirmation, in which she requested that the Supreme Court consider her motion to be one to vacate the order of dismissal, and thereupon, for leave to enter a default judgment in her favor. The court denied, as academic, the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment in light of the dismissal order. The court also denied the plaintiff’s application to deem her motion to also be considered as one to vacate the dismissal order, and the plaintiff appeals from that portion of the order.

The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant and not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments in support of, or new grounds or evidence for, the motion … . Here, the plaintiff’s reply papers included new arguments in support of the motion, new grounds and evidence for the motion, and expressly requested relief that was dramatically unlike the relief sought in her original motion … . Therefore, those contentions, and the grounds and evidence in support of them, were not properly before the Supreme Court … . Accordingly, we agree with the court’s determination to deny the plaintiff’s application to deem her motion to also be considered as one to vacate the dismissal order. Lee v Law Offs. of Kim & Bae, P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 03516, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARGUMENTS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERTY REJECTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ARGUMENTS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERTY REJECTED (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