Author: DMG

Discovery of the claims file after the commencement of the action

Rickard v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06333 [4th Dept. 2018]

During discovery, plaintiff served upon defendant a notice to produce its entire SUM claim file. Defendant, relying upon Lalka v ACA Ins. Co. (128 AD3d 1508 [4th Dept 2015]), responded by providing plaintiff with the contents of the claim file up until the date of commencement of this action. During a pretrial conference, defendant made an offer to resolve the matter. In a follow-up letter, plaintiff demanded that defendant provide the entire claim file, including those parts generated after commencement of this action. Defendant moved for a protective order and alternative relief, including an in camera review, plaintiff cross-moved to compel disclosure of the entire claim file, and defendant filed a second motion, seeking dismissal of the complaint, which is not relevant on appeal. Supreme Court, inter alia, denied defendant's motion for a protective order and granted plaintiff's cross motion in part by directing defendant to provide plaintiff with "any and all documents in the claim file pertaining to the payment or rejection of the subject claim including those prepared after the filing of this lawsuit up to the time the settlement offer was made . . . including reports prepared by Defendant's attorney(s)." Defendant appeals.

We note at the outset that defendant did not challenge plaintiff's notice to produce, which requested the entire claim file without designating any documents or categories of documents therein, on the ground that such request was palpably improper because it was overbroad or sought matter not "material and necessary" for the prosecution of plaintiff's action (CPLR 3101 [a]; see CPLR 3120 [1], [2]; see generally Battease v State of New York, 129 AD3d 1579, 1580 [4th Dept 2015]; Heimbach v State Farm Ins., 114 AD3d 1221, 1222 [4th Dept 2014]), and that defendant's motion for a protective order was based upon the assertion that any documents contained in the claim file after the date of commencement were materials protected from discovery. Thus, the sole issue on appeal is whether defendant met its burden of establishing that those parts of the claim file withheld from discovery contain material that is protected from discovery. We conclude that defendant did not meet that burden.

To the extent that Lalka (128 AD3d at 1508) holds that any documents in a claim file created after commencement of an action in a SUM case in which there has been no denial or disclaimer of coverage are per se protected from discovery, it should not be followed. Rather, a party seeking a protective order under any of the categories of protected materials in CPLR 3101 bears "the burden of establishing any right to protection" (Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 377 [1991]; see Heimbach, 114 AD3d at 1222). " [A] court is not required to accept a party's characterization of material as privileged or confidential' " (Optic Plus Enters., Ltd. v Bausch & Lomb Inc., 37 AD3d 1185, 1186 [4th Dept 2007]). Ultimately, "resolution of the issue whether a particular document is . . . protected is necessarily a fact-specific determination . . . , most often requiring in camera review' " (id., quoting Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp., 78 NY2d at 378).

Here, we conclude that defendant failed to meet its burden inasmuch as it relied solely upon the conclusory characterizations of its counsel that those parts of the claim file withheld from discovery contain protected material. We nonetheless further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the court abused its discretion by ordering the production of allegedly protected documents and instead should have granted the alternative relief requested by defendant, i.e., allowing it to create a privilege log pursuant to CPLR 3122 (b) followed by an in camera review of the subject documents by the court (see Schindler v City of New York, 134 AD3d 1013, 1014-1015 [2d Dept 2015]; Baliva v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 275 AD2d 1030, 1031 [4th Dept 2000]). We therefore reverse the order insofar as appealed from, vacate the first and second ordering paragraphs, grant the motion for a protective order insofar as it seeks an in camera review, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine the motion and the cross motion following an in camera review of the allegedly protected documents.

The bold is mine.

Law of the case

J.P. Morgan Sec., Inc. v Vigilant Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06146 [1st Dept, 2018]

However, application of the doctrine of the "law of the case" is not warranted under the particular circumstances before us.

The law of the case is applicable to "legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in a prior decision" (Brownrigg v New York City Hous. Auth., 29 AD3d 721, 722 [2d Dept 2006]). On the prior appeal, the Court of Appeals stated that "the Insurers do not earnestly dispute that the claims fall within the policy's definition of Loss" (21 NY3d at 333), but did not rely on the policy language in denying defendants' motions. Instead it focused on the public policy issue. Furthermore, the doctrine does not apply where a motion for summary judgment follows a motion to dismiss that was not converted to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212(c)(see Alvarado v City of New York, 150 AD3d 500, 500 [1st Dept 2017]; Rosen v Mosby, 148 AD3d 1228, 1233 [3d Dept 2017], lv dismissed 30 NY3d 1037 [2017]; 191 Chrystie LLC v Ledoux, 82 AD3d 681, 682 [1st Dept 2011]).

Even if the Court of Appeals' prior determination is viewed as addressing the contractual issue, "while the law of the case doctrine is intended to foster orderly convenience' . . ., it is not an absolute mandate which limits an appellate court's power to reconsider issues where there are extraordinary circumstances, such as subsequent evidence affecting the prior determination or a change of law'" (Frankson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 67 AD3d 213, 218 [2d Dept 2009]; see also Foley v Roche, 86 AD2d 887, 887 [1982], lv denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982] [holding that where the basis for a prior order had since been overruled by the Supreme Court of the United States and by the Court of Appeals, the law of the case doctrine can be ignored even though the prior order was from a higher court]). Here, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Kokesh, characterizing SEC disgorgement as a penalty, represents such a change of law.

A trials judge’s function is to protect the record, not create it

People v Sookdeo, 2018 NY Slip Op 06040 [2d Dept 2018]

 Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of gang assault in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

However, there must be a new trial, before a different justice, because the Supreme Court conducted excessive and prejudicial questioning of trial witnesses. Although defense counsel did not object to most instances of judicial interference, we reach this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a]; People v Davis, 147 AD3d 1077, 1079). "While neither the nature of our adversary system nor the constitutional requirement of a fair trial preclude a trial court from assuming an active role in the truth-seeking process,' the court's discretion in this area is not unfettered" (People v Robinson, 151 AD3d 758, 759, quoting People v Storfs, 47 NY2d 882, 883). The principle restraining the court's discretion is that a trial judge's "function is to protect the record, not to make it" (People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44, 58). Indeed, when the trial judge interjects often and indulges in an extended questioning of witnesses, even where those questions would be proper if they came from trial counsel, the trial judge's participation presents significant risks of prejudicial unfairness (see People v Robinson, 151 AD3d 758; People v Davis, 147 AD3d at 1079). Accordingly, while a trial judge may intervene in a trial to clarify confusing testimony and facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial, the court may not take on "the function or appearance of an advocate" (People v Arnold, 98 NY2d 63, 67; see People v Davis, 147 AD3d at 1079).

Here, the Supreme Court interjected itself into the questioning of multiple witnesses, elicited step-by-step details about how the defendant was identified by witnesses as a suspect, and generally created the impression that it was an advocate for the People. Under the circumstances, the court's improper interference deprived the defendant of a fair trial, and a new trial before a different justice is warranted (see People v Hinds, 160 AD3d 983; People v Robinson, 151 AD3d 758; People v Davis, 147 AD3d at 1079).

The bold is mine.

The failure to annex the pleadings isn’t quite so terrible [CPLR 3212(b) and CPLR 2001]

Sensible Choice Contr., LLC v Rodgers, 2018 NY Slip Op 05790 [2d Dept 2018]

The defendants' contention that the plaintiff's failure to annex the pleadings to its motion papers was a fatal defect is without merit. CPLR 3212(b) requires, inter alia, that a moving party support its motion for summary judgment by attaching a copy of the pleadings. However, [*2]CPLR 2001 permits a court, at any stage of an action, to disregard a party's mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (see Wade v Knight Transp., Inc., 151 AD3d 1107, 1109). Here, the pleadings were not only electronically filed and available to the Supreme Court and the parties, but the answer was submitted by the defendants in opposition to the motion, and the summons and complaint were submitted in reply by the plaintiff. The defendants did not assert that they were prejudiced by the omission. Under such circumstances, the court properly disregarded the plaintiff's omission (see Brightman v Prison Health Serv., Inc., 108 AD3d 739, 742; Studio A Showroom, LLC v Yoon, 99 AD3d 632; Welch v Hauck, 18 AD3d 1096, 1098).

Referree’s report

Pathak v Shukla, 2018 NY Slip Op 05776 [2d Dept 2018]

" The report of a Referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the Referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility'" (Capili v Ilagan, 26 AD3d 354, 354, quoting Stone v Stone, 229 AD2d 388, 388; see Pittoni v Boland, 278 AD2d 396; Slater v Links at N. Hills, 262 AD2d 299). Here, the referee's determination that the defendant willfully failed to comply with the terms of the stipulation and judgment of divorce was substantially supported by the record. In addition, the record also supported the referee's determination that the plaintiff was entitled to an additional award of attorney's fees and transcription costs from the defendant. Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to confirm the referee's report and to hold the defendant in contempt.

3012(b) and efiling

Mazzola v Village Hous. Assoc., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05759 [2d Dept 2018]

To avoid dismissal of an action for failure to serve a complaint after a demand for the complaint has been made pursuant to CPLR 3012(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see Lobel v Hilltop Vil. Coop., No. 4, 138 AD3d 938; Telian v Freund, 129 AD3d 828; Carducci v Russell, 120 AD3d 1375). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse is within the sound discretion of the court (see Castor v Cuevas, 137 AD3d 734; Khamis v Corporate Transp. Group, Ltd., 135 AD3d 825, 826). While the court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005), a conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse (see Lobel v Hilltop Vil. Coop., No. 4, 138 AD3d at 939; Khamis v Corporate Transp. Group, Ltd., 135 AD3d at 826; Carducci v Russell, 120 AD3d at 1375-1376; Rock v New York City Tr. Auth., 78 AD3d 680; Leibowitz v Glickman, 50 AD3d 643; Miraglia v County of Nassau, 295 AD2d 411).

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) to dismiss the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely serve the complaint. The excuse proffered by the plaintiff, that his counsel did not receive the demand for the complaint that was served upon him by regular mail, was unreasonable under the circumstances. The record demonstrates, and the plaintiff does not dispute, that this action was commenced as an electronically filed case in the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System (hereinafter NYSCEF). On August 2, 2016, the defendant uploaded a notice of appearance and demand for the complaint to the NYSCEF system, and also served a copy upon the plaintiff by regular mail. That same day, the NYSCEF system provided an email notification to the plaintiff's counsel that the notice of appearance and demand for the complaint had been uploaded. The plaintiff failed to proffer any excuse, let alone a reasonable excuse, for his failure to timely serve a complaint in response to this email notification. In light of the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate a reasonable excuse, we need not consider whether he had a potentially meritorious cause of action.

 

3215(c) and waiver

Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Heilpern, 2018 NY Slip Op 05752 [2d Dept 2018]

The plaintiff failed to seek a default judgment on the unanswered complaint within one year after the default, as required by CPLR 3215(c) (see Giglio v NTIMP, Inc., 86 AD3d 301, 307). To avoid dismissal of the action as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in seeking a default judgment and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Bonanno, 146 AD3d 844, 846; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Dorvelus, 140 AD3d 850, 852; Ohio Sav. Bank v Decaudin, 129 AD3d 925, 926). The plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for its delay in seeking a default judgment. Since the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for its delay in seeking a default judgment, this Court need not consider whether it had a potentially meritorious cause of action (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Dorvelus, 140 AD3d at 852).

A defendant may waive the right to seek a dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) by serving an answer or taking any other steps which may be viewed as a formal or informal appearance (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Grella, 145 AD3d 669; Myers v Slutsky, 139 AD2d 709, 711). Here, the defendants did not appear in the action, either formally or informally.

Amendment CPLR 3025

D'Angelo v Kujawski, 2018 NY Slip Op 05750 [2d Dept 2018]

"[A]n amendment which would shift a claim from a party without standing to another party who could have asserted that claim in the first instance is proper since such an amendment, by its nature, does not result in surprise or prejudice to the defendants who had prior knowledge of the claim and an opportunity to prepare a proper defense" (JCD Farms v Juul-Nielsen, 300 AD2d 446, 446 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see United Fairness, Inc. v Town of Woodbury, 113 AD3d 754, 755; Matter of Highland Hall Apts., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 66 AD3d 678, 682; Plotkin v New York City Tr. Auth., 220 AD2d 653, 654).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to substitute herself in her representative capacity as the plaintiff in place of herself in her individual capacity. The proposed amendment, which only sought to shift the causes of action from the plaintiff in her individual capacity to herself in her representative capacity, was proper since the allegations set forth in the complaint gave the appellants notice of the legal malpractice causes of action being asserted against them in the amended complaint (see United Fairness, Inc. v Town of Woodbury, 113 AD3d at 755; Matter of Highland Hall Apts., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 66 AD3d at 682; JCD Farms v Juul-Nielsen, 300 AD2d at 446; Plotkin v New York City Tr. Auth., 220 AD2d at 654). Moreover, the appellants' contention that they would be prejudiced by the amendment because the applicable statute of limitations had expired by the time the plaintiff sought leave to amend the complaint is without merit, since the original complaint was timely filed and gave the appellants notice of the transactions and occurrences pleaded in the amended complaint (see CPLR 203[f]; see also George v Mt. Sinai Hosp., 47 NY2d 170, 178; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Eitani, 148 AD3d 193, 202).

Standing (not a jurisdictional defect) and waiver and sua sponte

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Campbell, 2018 NY Slip Op 05749 [2d Dept 2018]

To the extent that the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the plaintiff's standing in the order appealed from, a party's lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint by the court (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Emmanuel, 83 AD3d 1047, 1048-1049). Moreover, since the defendant defaulted in appearing or answering the complaint, and failed to move to vacate his default, he is precluded from asserting lack of standing as a defense (see First Franklin Fin. Corp. v Alfau, 157 AD3d 863).

Judiciary Law § 487

Bill Birds, Inc. v Stein Law Firm, P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 05743 [2d Dept 2018]

Contrary to the defendants' contention, the cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 was not duplicative of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice. "A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 requires an intent to deceive, whereas a legal malpractice claim is based on negligent conduct" (Moormann v Perini & Hoerger, 65 AD3d 1106, 1108; see Lauder v Goldhamer, 122 AD3d 908, 911; Sabalza v Salgado, 85 AD3d 436, 438).

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487. A chronic extreme pattern of legal delinquency is not a basis for liability pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 (see Dupree v Voorhees, 102 AD3d 912, 913). Further, the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating that the defendant attorneys had the "intent to deceive the court or any party" (Judiciary Law § 487; see Schiller v Bender, Burrow, & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 AD3d 756, 759; Agostini v Sobol, 304 AD2d 395, 396). Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity (see CPLR 3016[b]; Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US], 134 AD3d 610, 615; Armstrong v Blank Rome LLP, 126 AD3d 427; Putnam County Temple & Jewish Ctr., Inc. v Rhinebeck Sav. Bank, 87 AD3d 1118, 1120). That the defendants commenced the underlying action on behalf of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs failed to prevail in that action does not provide a basis for a cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 to recover the legal fees incurred.