Author: DMG

Individual assignment system

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Caliguri, 2019 NY Slip Op 00262 [2d Dept. 2019]

22 NYCRR 202.3(a) provides for an individual assignment system which assigns the continuous supervision of each action and proceeding by a single judge. However,”[t]he Uniform Rules for Trial Courts do not deal with the issue of whether related cases should be assigned to the same Judge” (Matter of Morfesis v Wilk, 138 AD2d 244, 246). There is no requirement that related cases be heard by the same judge. Further, as the prior foreclosure action was no longer pending, there existed no “potential for conflicting rulings” (Appolino v Delorbe, 24 AD3d 252, 253; see Clearwater Realty Co. v Hernandez, 256 AD2d 100). Accordingly, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to deny the defendant’s motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.3(a) to transfer the action to the Justice who heard the prior foreclosure action.

SJ generally

Moscatiello v Wyde True Value Lbr. & Supply Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00269 [2d Dept. 2019]

The proponent of a summary judgment motion bears the burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of material issues of fact (see e.g. Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Only after this showing has been made does the burden shift to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material triable issues of fact (see id. at 324).

***

The plaintiff’s contention that Mid-Atlantic’s motion for summary judgment was untimely, and therefore should not have been considered by the Supreme Court, is without merit (see CPLR 2211; Lennard v Khan, 69 AD3d 812, 814; Rivera v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 29 AD3d 560, 561).

A motion is made when it is served.

Questioning on a matter ruled inadmissible and sanctions

Banks-Dalrymple v Chang, 2019 NY Slip Op 00367 [1st Dept. 2019]

Although the Court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial for defendant’s counsel’s violation of the court’s in limine ruling, we find that a curative instruction, together with a striking of the impermissible parts of the record, would have sufficed. Accordingly, having declared the mistrial, it was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion to sanction defendants’ counsel, for its prejudicial questioning of plaintiff on a matter ruled inadmissable (Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 130-1.1; Pickens v Castro, 55 AD3d 443, 444 [1st Dept 2008]). We, however, reduce the sanctions and direct that upon receipt of proof of payment to plaintiff’s experts, defendant’s counsel must reimburse plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.

Obstfeld v Thermo Niton Analyzers, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00609 [2d Dept. 2019]

Since the plaintiffs have raised arguments on this appeal that appear to be “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1]), the appeal may be frivolous (see Carbone v US Bank N.A., 156 AD3d 678, 680; Curet v DeKalb Realty, LLC, 127 AD3d 914, 916; Caplan v Tofel, 65 AD3d 1180, 1181-1182). Accordingly, we direct the submission of affirmations or affidavits on the issue of whether, and in what amount, costs or sanctions in connection with this appeal should or should not be imposed on the plaintiffs.

Mailing

Bank of Am., N.A. v Bittle, 2019 NY Slip Op 00086 [2d Dept. 2019]

Here, Nationstar relied on the affidavit of its employee, Michael Woods, who averred, in relevant part, that “the 90-day notices required by statute were mailed to [d]efendant by regular and certified mail to the last known mailing address and to the property address on January 3, 2013,” and that the letters “were sent in separate envelopes from any other mailing or notice.” However, the record contains a single 90-day notice, bearing the plaintiff’s letterhead and addressed to the defendant at the subject property, with no clear indication as to whether the mailing was made by registered or certified mail, or by first-class mail. Moreover, Woods—who is not an employee of the plaintiff—did not aver in his affidavit to having any familiarity with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures. Under these circumstances, Nationstar failed to establish, prima facie, strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 (compare Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Mandrin, 160 AD3d at 1016, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Trupia, 150 AD3d 1049, 1050, and Citimortgage, Inc. v Pappas, 147 AD3d 900, 901, with Citimortgage, Inc. v Banks, 155 AD3d 936, 937).

The bold is mine.

Experts

Wei Lin v Sang Kim, 2019 NY Slip Op 00161 [2d Dept. 2019]

In a medical malpractice action, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing, prima facie, either the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice, or that any departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (see Kelly v Rosca, 164 AD3d 888, 891; Barley v Bethpage Physical Therapy Assoc., P.C., 122 AD3d 784; Wall v Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr., 78 AD3d 1043, 1044). The burden is not met if the defendant’s expert renders an opinion that is conclusory in nature or unsupported by competent evidence (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324; Bongiovanni v Cavagnuolo, 138 AD3d 12, 17; Barley v Bethpage Physical Therapy Assoc., P.C., 122 AD3d at 784; Duvidovich v George, 122 AD3d 666).

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, although on a different ground than that relied on by the court. In support of his motion, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that he did not depart from good and accepted medical practice, or that any departure was not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant’s expert merely summarized the medical records and certain deposition testimony, and opined in a conclusory manner that the defendant’s treatment of the injured plaintiff did not represent a departure from good and accepted medical practice (see Kelly v Rosca, 164 AD3d at 891; Barley v Bethpage Physical Therapy Assoc., P.C., 122 AD3d at 784). Since the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

The bold is mine.

Sikorjak v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 00157 [2d Dept. 2019]

 It was a provident exercise of discretion for the court to limit the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert to issues calling for professional or technical knowledge (see De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307; Century Sur. Co. v All in One Roofing, LLC, 154 AD3d 803, 808; Kohler v Barker, 147 AD3d 1037, 1038; Galasso v 400 Exec. Blvd., LLC, 101 AD3d 677, 678). The court also providently exercised its discretion in sustaining an objection to improper opinion testimony by a fact witness (see Guzek v B & L Wholesale Supply, Inc., 151 AD3d 1662, 1664; LaPenta v Loca-Bik Ltee Transp., 238 AD2d 913, 914). 

Daniele v Pain Mgt. Ctr. of Long Is., 2019 NY Slip Op 00093 [2d Dept. 2019]

The Supreme Court also should not have allowed the plaintiff’s experts, Jason Brajer and Paul Edelson, to testify as expert witnesses in emergency medicine. “[W]here a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” (Mustello v Berg, 44 AD3d 1018, 1019; see Behar v Coren, 21 AD3d 1045, 1046-1047). Whether a particular witness is qualified to testify as an expert is ordinarily a discretionary determination (see de Hernandez v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 46 AD3d 517, 517), which will not be disturbed in the absence of a serious mistake, an error of law, or an improvident exercise of discretion (see id. at 517-518). Brajer was board-certified in anesthesiology and pain management. He did not testify that he had training in emergency medicine, and did not adequately explain how he was familiar with the standard of care in emergency medicine based upon his prior experience of being called to the emergency room to prepare patients for surgery, or evaluating urgent back pain (see Galluccio v Grossman, 161 AD3d 1049, 1052; cf. Ocasio-Gary v Lawrence Hosp., 69 AD3d 403, 405). Edelson, a pediatrician, had minimal experience in emergency medicine. More importantly, that experience, which consisted of moonlighting at a hospital for five hours per week in the late 1970s and early 1980s, was simply too remote in time to qualify him to testify as an expert in emergency medicine as of September 2010, the time of the treatment at issue in this case. Edelson otherwise failed to demonstrate that he possessed the specialized knowledge, training, or education that would have qualified him as an expert in this area (see Lavi v NYU Hosps. Ctr., 133 AD3d 830, 831; de Hernandez v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 46 AD3d at 517-518; Mustello v Berg, 44 AD3d at 1018-1019). Accordingly, the court should not have permitted their expert testimony.

The bold is mine.

Standing

Cenlar FSB v Lanzbom, 2019 NY Slip Op 00092 [2d Dept. 2019]

“On a motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing, rather than on the plaintiff to affirmatively establish its standing in order for the motion to be denied'” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Homar, 163 AD3d 522, 523, quoting Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Vitellas, 131 AD3d 52, 59-60; see Citicorp Mtge. v Adams, 153 AD3d 779, 780). “To defeat a defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law” (Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Vitellas, 131 AD3d at 60; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Homar, 163 AD3d at 523). Here, the defendant merely pointed to alleged gaps in the plaintiff’s case and failed to meet her burden of establishing, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Homar, 163 AD3d at 523-524).

This one is too long to quote. You’re on your own.

US Bank N.A. v Nelson, 2019 NY Slip Op 00494 [2d Dept. 2019].

The short version is that standing was waived.

Evidence

Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Marlin, 2019 NY Slip Op 00095 [2d Dept. 2019]

When a party relies upon the business records exception to the hearsay rule in attempting to establish its prima facie case, “[a] proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures” (Citibank, N.A. v Cabrera, 130 AD3d 861, 861; see CPLR 3408[a]).

In support of those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants and for an order of reference, Fannie Mae submitted affidavits of foreclosure specialists employed by Seterus, Inc., its loan servicer. The foreclosure specialists attested that they were personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of Seterus, Inc., but failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records concerning the defendants’ payment history and default. Accordingly, Fannie Mae failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon in the affidavits were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]; HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v Royal, 142 AD3d 952, 954; US Bank NA v Handler, 140 AD3d 948, 949). Since Fannie Mae’s motion was based on evidence that was not in admissible form (see HSBC Mtge. Servs., Inc. v Royal, 142 AD3d at 954), Fannie Mae failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants and for an order of reference should have been denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendants’ papers in opposition (see id., citing Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853).

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of Fannie Mae’s motion which was to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims. To the extent that those portions of the answer relate to Residential’s alleged lack of standing, they were properly stricken, and the defendants make no arguments on appeal regarding the remaining affirmative defenses and counterclaims.

The bold is mine.

Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v B&F Land Dev. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00292 [2d Dept. 2019]

The best evidence rule requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and are sought to be proven (see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d 639, 643; Stathis v Estate of Karas, 130 AD3d 1008, 1009; Kliamovich v Kliamovich, 85 AD3d 867, 869). Under an exception to the rule, “secondary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original may be admitted upon threshold factual findings by the trial court that the proponent of the substitute has sufficiently explained the unavailability of the primary evidence and has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith” (Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 NY2d at 643 [citations omitted]). The proponent of the secondary evidence “has the heavy burden of establishing, preliminarily to the court’s satisfaction, that it is a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original” (id. at 645).

Here, PLM failed to offer any explanation as to the unavailability of the primary evidence, i.e., the original policy. PLM also did not establish that the copy of the policy proffered at trial was a “reliable and accurate portrayal of the original” (id.). In that regard, during voir dire examination, Santoro acknowledged that he had compiled the copy of the policy proffered by PLM at trial based upon information contained in the underwriting file, and he could not explain the language discrepancy between that copy of the policy and the copy of the policy produced by PLM during discovery. Consequently, the Supreme Court should not have admitted into evidence the copy of the policy proffered by PLM at trial. The error was not harmless since, without the original policy or an accurate replication, PLM could not establish what locations were covered by the policy, what exclusions to coverage, if any, existed under the terms of the policy, or the insured’s responsibilities with respect to providing notice of the claim to PLM (see Stathis v Estate of Karas, 130 AD3d at 1011).

The bold is mine.

3211(a)(4) [pending action]

Jaber v Elayyan, 2019 NY Slip Op 00102 [2d Dept. 2019]

Under CPLR 3211(a)(4), a court has ” broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed based upon another pending action where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same. It is not necessary that the precise legal theories presented in the first action also be presented in the second action so long as the relief . . . is the same or substantially the same'” (Dec v BFM Realty, LLC, 153 AD3d 497, 497, quoting Swartz v Swartz, 145 AD3d 818, 822; see Whitney v Whitney, 57 NY2d 731, 732). Similarly, while a complete identity of parties is not a necessity for dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(4) (see Proietto v Donohue, 189 AD2d 807, 807; Barringer v Zgoda, 91 AD2d 811, 811), there must at least be a “substantial” identity of parties, “which generally is present when at least one plaintiff and one defendant is common in each action” (Morgulas v Yudell Realty, 161 [*2]AD2d 211, 213; see Cellino & Barnes, P.C. v Law Off. of Christopher J. Cassar, P.C., 140 AD3d 1732, 1734; Cherico, Cherico & Assoc. v Midollo, 67 AD3d 622, 622; Proietto v Donohue, 189 AD2d at 807-808).

Here, there is no common plaintiff in the New York County and Richmond County actions, as the former action was commenced by the plaintiff’s brother and others, while the instant action was commenced by the plaintiff. Moreover, the subject matter of the two actions, although related, is not sufficiently similar to warrant the dismissal of the complaint in this action insofar as asserted against the defendant. The relief sought in each action is different, and the resolution of the former action would not necessarily resolve the instant plaintiff’s claim of equitable ownership of the property (see generally Sprecher v Thibodeau, 148 AD3d 654, 656; Parker v Rich, 140 AD2d 177, 178; Corporate Inv. Co. v Mount Vernon Metal Prods. Co., Inc., 206 App Div 273, 276). Since there is no sufficiently substantial identity of parties and subject matter in the two actions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Social Media

Vasquez-Santos v Mathew, 2019 NY Slip Op 00541 [1st Dept. 2019]

Private social media information can be discoverable to the extent it “contradicts or conflicts with [a] plaintiff’s alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses, and other claims” (Patterson v Turner Const. Co., 88 AD3d 617, 618 [1st Dept 2011]). Here, plaintiff, who at one time was a semi-professional basketball player, claims that he has become disabled as the result of the automobile accident at issue, such that he can no longer play basketball. Although plaintiff testified that pictures depicting him playing basketball, which were posted on social media after the accident, were in games played before the accident, defendant is entitled to discovery to rebut such claims and defend against plaintiff’s claims of injury. That plaintiff did not take the pictures himself is of no import. He was “tagged,” thus allowing him access to them, and others were sent to his phone. Plaintiff’s response to prior court orders, which consisted of a HIPAA authorization refused by Facebook, some obviously immaterial postings, and a vague affidavit claiming to no longer have the photographs, did not comply with his discovery obligations. The access to plaintiff’s accounts and devices, however, is appropriately limited in time, i.e., only those items posted or sent after the accident, and in subject matter, i.e., those items discussing or showing defendant engaging in basketball or other similar physical activities (see Forman v Henkin, 30 NY3d 656, 665 [2018]; see also Abdur-Rahman v Pollari, 107 AD3d 452, 454 [1st Dept 2013]).