Author: DMG

Service of subpoena on attorney

Chicoine v Koch, 2018 NY Slip Op 03825 [2d Dept. 2018]

A court of record generally has the power "to issue a subpoena requiring the attendance of a person found in the state to testify in a cause pending in that court" (Judiciary Law § 2-b[1]). "Where the attendance at trial of a party or person within the party's control can be compelled by a trial subpoena, that subpoena may be served by delivery in accordance with [CPLR 2103(b)] to the party's attorney of record" (CPLR 2303-a). Here, the trial subpoena was properly served upon the defendant's attorneys pursuant to CPLR 2303-a and 2103(b)(2). Contrary to the defendant's contention, because he is a party to this action, over whom personal jurisdiction had been obtained, he is "found in the state" within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 2-b(1) (see Coutts Bank [Switzerland] v Anatian, 275 AD2d 609; cf. Zeeck v Melina Taxi Co., 177 AD2d 692, 694; see generally Matter of Standard Fruit & S. S. Co. v Waterfront Commn. of N.Y. Harbor, 43 NY2d 11, 15).

Experts have to know what they are talking about and CPLR 2106

Galluccio v Grossman, 2018 NY Slip Op 03664 [2d Dept. 2018]

In opposition, the affirmation of the plaintiffs' expert failed to raise a triable issue of fact. "While it is true that a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field, the witness nonetheless should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable" (Postlethwaite v United Health Servs. Hosps., 5 AD3d 892, 895 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "Thus, where 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). Here, the plaintiffs' expert, who was board-certified in internal medicine and infectious disease, did not indicate in his affirmation that he had training in emergency medicine, or what, if anything, he did to familiarize himself with the standard of care for this specialty. The affirmation, therefore, [*3]lacked probative value, and failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Lavi v NYU Hosps. Ctr., 133 AD3d 830, 831). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the motion of Friedman and Island Medical for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

***

Although the plaintiffs initially opposed the motion with physician affirmations that did not comply with CPLR 2016, the court providently disregarded the defect after the plaintiffs replaced the affirmations with affidavits (see CPLR 2001). However, the court should have granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent insofar as asserted against those defendants, since, as elucidated in the bill of particulars, the claim does not involve an affirmative violation of the plaintiff's physical integrity as is required to state a cause of action for lack of informed consent (see Martin v Hudson Val. Assoc., 13 AD3d 419, 420).

2104 and email

Kataldo v Atlantic Chevrolet Cadillac, 2018 NY Slip Op 03669 [2d Dept. 2018]

To be enforceable, a stipulation of settlement must conform to the criteria set forth in CPLR 2104 (see Forcelli v Gelco Corp., 109 AD3d 244, 248; see also Martin v Harrington, 139 AD3d 1017, 1018). Where, as in the instant case, counsel for the parties did not enter into a settlement in open court, an "agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action . . . is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney" (CPLR 2104). The plain language of CPLR 2104 requires that "the agreement itself must be in writing, signed by the party (or attorney) to be bound" (Bonnette v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 3 NY3d 281, 286; see Forcelli v Gelco Corp., 109 AD3d at 248). An email message may be considered "subscribed" as required by CPLR 2104, and, therefore, capable of enforcement, where it "contains all material terms of a settlement and a manifestation of mutual accord, and the party to be charged, or his or her agent, types his or her name under circumstances manifesting an intent that the name be treated as a signature" (Forcelli v Gelco Corp., 109 AD3d at 251).

Here, the email confirming the settlement agreement was sent by counsel for the party seeking to enforce the agreement, LICO. There is no email subscribed by the plaintiff, who is the party to be charged, or by her former attorney. In the absence of a writing subscribed by the plaintiff or her attorney, the settlement agreement is unenforceable against the plaintiff (see id. at 248; see also CPLR 2104).

205(a)

Matter of Lindenwood Cut Rate Liquors, Ltd. v New York State Liq. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03680 [2d Dept. 2018]

As the petitioner correctly contends, CPLR 205(a) applies not only to actions but also to special proceedings under CPLR article 78 (see Matter of Morris Inv. v Commissioner of Fin. of City of N.Y. , 69 NY2d 933; Matter of Winston v Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Bd. , 224 AD2d 160). The toll of CPLR 205(a) would not apply, however, if the prior proceeding was dismissed on the merits; thus, the court must determine whether the order dismissing the prior proceeding is entitled to res judicata effect (see Yonkers Contr. Co. v Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp ., 93 NY2d 375, 380).

Here, the prior proceeding was dismissed after being marked off the calendar. Contrary to the Authority's contention, "[a] dismissal of an action by being marked off the Trial Calendar is not a dismissal on the merits," and "[a] new action on the same theory is therefore not barred by the doctrine of res judicata" (Lewin v Yedvarb , 61 AD2d 1025, 1026; see Morales v New York City Hous. Auth ., 302 AD2d 571, 571; Gallo v Teplitz Tri-State Recycling , 254 AD2d 253, 253-254; Medalie v Jacobson , 120 AD2d 652). Moreover, there is nothing in the order denying the petitioner's motion to restore the prior proceeding to the calendar which suggests that the prior proceeding was dismissed with prejudice (see Gallo v Teplitz Tri-State Recycling , 254 AD2d at 254).

You can’t renew a motion you didnt oppose

Singh v Reddy, 2018 NY Slip Op 03722 [2d Dept. 2018]

The branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to renew was properly denied, since there was no opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss that could have been renewed (see CPLR 2221; Hudson City Sav. Bank v Bomba, 149 AD3d 704, 705). To the extent that the Supreme Court treated that branch of the plaintiffs' motion as, in effect, a motion to vacate the default, that branch of the plaintiffs' motion was also properly denied. The plaintiffs failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their default (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Taylor Appraisals v Prokop, 99 AD3d 985, 985).

3211(c) standard

Soroush v Citimortgage, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03724 [2d Dept. 2018]

CPLR 3211(c) provides that, "[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." Here, the Supreme Court should not have converted Citimortgage's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint to one for summary judgment without providing "adequate notice to the parties" (CPLR 3211[c]; see Sunset Café, Inc. v Mett's Surf & Sports Corp., 103 AD3d 707; Saleh v New York Post, 78 AD3d 1149; Neurological Servs. of Queens, P.C. v Farmingville Family Med. Care, 63 AD3d 703; Moutafis v Osborne, 18 AD3d 723; Steiner v Lazzaro & Gregory, 271 AD2d 596; Glendora v Kofalt, 224 AD2d 485; Pearsal Props. Corp. v Arzina Realty Corp., 139 AD2d 638; Camarda v Vanderbilt, 100 AD2d 836). None of the recognized exceptions to the notice requirement is applicable here. No specific request for summary judgment was made by any party, the parties did not deliberately chart a summary judgment course, and the action did not exclusively involve issues of law which were fully appreciated and argued by the parties (see Sunset Café, Inc. v Mett's Surf & Sports Corp., 103 AD3d at 708; Moutafis v Osborne, 18 AD3d at 724). Moreover, since Citimortgage's motion to dismiss the complaint should not have been converted to one for summary judgment, the court also should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff (see Moutafis v Osborne, 18 AD3d at 724).

1015

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Emma, 2018 NY Slip Op 03728 [2d Dept. 2018]

Pursuant to CPLR 1015(a), "[i]f a party dies and the claim for or against him [or her] is not thereby extinguished the court shall order substitution of the proper parties" (emphasis added). "Generally, the death of a party divests a court of jurisdiction to act, and automatically stays proceedings in the action pending the substitution of a personal representative for the decedent" (Neuman v Neumann, 85 AD3d 1138, 1139). Here, the decedent's death did not divest the court of jurisdiction and warrant the imposition of a stay, since the decedent is not a party in this action (see Sample v Temkin, 87 AD3d 686, 687-688). Moreover, since the decedent made an absolute conveyance of all her interest in the property to the defendant and the plaintiff elected not to seek a deficiency judgment against the decedent's estate, the decedent was not a necessary party to the action (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Bachmann, 145 AD3d 712, 714; HSBC Bank USA v Ungar Family Realty Corp., 111 AD3d 673). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to vacate the stay.

Infants

Matter of Fast Care Med. Diagnostics, PLLC/PV v Government Employees Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 03831 [2d Dept. 2018]

The underlying papers can be found HERE.

The petitioner, Fast Care Medical Diagnostics, PLLC, named herein as Fast Care Medical Diagnostics, PLLC/PV (hereinafter Fast Care), provided certain medical services to its assignor, "PV," in connection with injuries purportedly sustained by PV in a motor vehicle accident. At the time of such treatment, PV was 15 years old. PV and his mother executed an assignment of benefits, which assigned all rights and remedies to payment for health care services provided by Fast Care to which PV was entitled under article 51 of the Insurance Law. Fast Care submitted claims for these services to Government Employees Insurance Co. (hereinafter GEICO), for reimbursement of first-party no-fault insurance benefits (see Insurance Law § 5102). GEICO denied the claims on grounds of purported lack of medical necessity.

Fast Care sought arbitration of the dispute. The arbitrator dismissed the proceeding without prejudice, on the ground that Fast Care had failed to comply with CPLR 1209, which provides, in relevant part, that "[a] controversy involving an infant . . . shall not be submitted to arbitration except pursuant to a court order made upon application of the representative of such infant," subject to an exception that is not applicable here. Fast Care appealed to a master arbitrator, who confirmed the determination. The master arbitrator further found that Fast Care lacked standing, because the parent of the infant patient, rather than the infant himself, was required to execute an assignment of benefits. Fast Care then instituted this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to vacate the arbitration award.

An arbitration award may be vacated if the court finds that the rights of a party were prejudiced by (1) corruption, fraud, or misconduct in procuring the award; (2) partiality of an arbitrator; (3) the arbitrator exceeding his or her power; or (4) the failure to follow the procedures of CPLR article 75 (see CPLR 7511[b]). In addition, an arbitration award may be vacated "if it violates strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power" (Matter of Slocum v Madariaga, 123 AD3d 1046, 1046; see Matter of Kowaleski [New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.], 16 NY3d 85, 90; Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 79). An arbitration award may also be vacated where it is in " explicit conflict'" with established laws and "the strong and well-defined policy considerations' embodied therein" (Matter of City of Oswego [Oswego City Firefighters Assn., Local 2707], 21 NY3d 880, 882, quoting Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 327 [emphasis omitted]).

We agree with the Supreme Court that the arbitrator's award was irrational and in conflict with CPLR 1209, which applies "only where an infant is a party" to an arbitration proceeding (Goldenberg v Goldenberg, 25 AD2d 670, 670, affd 19 NY2d 759; see Schneider v Schneider, 17 NY2d 123, 127). The infant patient was not a party to the arbitration; rather, Fast Care, as the infant's assignee, was the party that brought the arbitration (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.11[a]). Therefore, we agree with the court that the arbitrator disregarded established law in determining that the requirements of CPLR 1209 applied here (Schneider v Schneider, 17 NY2d at 127; see Goldenberg v Goldenberg, 25 AD2d at 670). Furthermore, the master arbitrator's determination that the assignment of benefits was not effective was not based on any requirement set forth in established law or regulations (see generally 11 NYCRR 65-2.4[c]).

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to vacate the awards and direct further arbitration proceedings as to the merits of Fast Care's claims (see Matter of City of Oswego [Oswego City Firefighters Assn., Local 2707], 21 NY3d at 882; see also Matter of Local 342 v Town of Huntington, 52 AD3d 720, 721; Matter of Kocsis [New York State Div. of Parole], 41 AD3d 1017, 1020; Matter of Rockland County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v BOCES Staff Assn., 308 AD2d 452, 454).

Contempt/Service

Kozel v Kozel, 2018 NY Slip Op 03907 [1st Dept. 2018]

Contrary to the contention of the nonparty witness (Inga), she was properly served via email with plaintiff's order to show cause. While a criminal contempt proceeding requires personal service on the contemnor (see Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 144 AD2d 252, 255-256 [1st Dept 1988]), CPLR 308(5) permits a court to direct another manner of service if the methods set forth in the statute prove impracticable. Here, Inga left the jurisdiction after the same court and Justice found her in contempt, and offers no evidence that she was at either her residence in London or Lithuania. Under these circumstances, the court properly directed that she be served via email (see Alfred E. Mann Living Trust v ETIRC Aviation S.A.R.L., 78 AD3d 137, 141-142 [1st Dept 2010]). Since Inga was properly served with the contempt motion, and had knowledge of the terms of the subject orders of which she was in violation, the court was empowered to find her in contempt without plaintiff commencing a special proceeding (see Citibank v Anthony Lincoln-Mercury, 86 AD2d 828, 829 [1st Dept 1982]).

Kozel v Kozel, 2018 NY Slip Op 03906 [1st Dept. 2018]

Contrary to her contention, she was properly served with plaintiff's order to show cause. The order to show cause directed plaintiff to serve Inga under CPLR 308 and her counsel by overnight mail on or before June 20, 2016. Inga's claim that her counsel was untimely served because he did not receive papers until June 21, 2016 is without merit (see CPLR 2103[b][6] [service is complete upon deposit into the custody of the overnight delivery service]). Likewise, the record supports that Inga was personally served at the New York City apartment she and defendant owned, which constituted her "dwelling place or usual place of abode within the state" for the purposes of CPLR 308 (see Krechmer v Boulakh, 277 AD2d 288, 289 [2d Dept 2000]).

Inadvertently left out CPLR 2001

Cuthbert v Foreign Dev. Serv., Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 03812 [1st Dept. 2018]

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendants' motion for renewal and reargument of their prior motion for summary judgment so that they could submit a lease extension to which they had referred in their initial moving papers but which they had inadvertently failed to attach to the papers (see CPLR 2001).

Hernandez v Marcano, 2018 NY Slip Op 03816 [1st Dept. 2018]

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to renew, which sought to submit an affirmation by her treating physician that, although referred to in her opposition papers, had been inadvertently omitted from the set of papers filed in court (see CPLR 2221[e]). Plaintiff demonstrated that the omission was the result of law office failure and that consideration of the affirmation would not prejudice defendants (see Cruz v Castanos, 10 AD3d 277 [1st Dept 2004]; Cespedes v McNamee, 308 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 2003]; see also Telep v Republic El. Corp., 267 AD2d 57, 58 [1st Dept 1999]).