DMG – Page 54

Kid’s K

CPLR R. 4401 Motion for judgment during trial

Al-Shahrani v Hudson Auto Traders, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 08546 (2nd Dept., 2011)

"A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party'" (Hoberg v Shree Granesh, LLC, 85 AD3d 965, 966, quoting Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556). "In making this evaluation, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant'" (Hoberg v Shree Granesh, LLC, 85 AD3d at 966, quoting Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d at 556). Applying these principles here, the evidence presented by the plaintiff provided a rational basis upon which the trier of fact could have concluded that the plaintiff was an infant when he entered into the subject contract with the defendant and, therefore, that the contract was voidable at the plaintiff's election (see Joseph v Schatzkin, 259 NY 241, 243; Leasing Serv. Corp. v Vita Italian Rest., 171 AD2d 926, 927; see also 66 NY Jur 2d, Infants and Other Persons Under Legal Disability § 7). We also conclude that the plaintiff made a demand before commencing this action for disaffirmance of the contract and return of the money paid to the defendant, as well as tendering to the defendant the vehicle which was the subject of the agreement, and that, by commencing this action, he unequivocally manifested his intention to disaffirm the contract (see Nathan v Karp, Inc., 214 App Div 490, 491-492). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the evidence before the Supreme Court did not establish, as a matter of law, that the contract was one for "necessaries" (see generally Sternlieb v Normandie Natl. Sec. Corp., 263 NY 245; Braham & Co., Inc. v Zittel, 232 App Div 406, 407; 66 NY Jur 2d, Infants and Other Persons Under Legal Disability § 20). Furthermore, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the plaintiff's mother did not have the right or authority to ratify the plaintiff's contract (see Kaufman v American Youth Hostels, 13 Misc 2d 8, 15, mod on other grounds 6 AD2d 223; see 66 NY Jur 2d, Infants and Other Persons Under Legal Disability § 7).

The parties' remaining contentions either are improperly raised for the first time on appeal, are without merit, or need not be addressed in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, the motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint denied, the complaint reinstated, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Putnam County, for a new trial.

The Facebook case

CPLR § 3101

Patterson v Turner Constr. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 07572 (1st Dept., 2011)

Plaintiff claims damages for physical and psychological injuries, including the inability to work, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and the loss of enjoyment of life. Although the motion court's in camera review established that at least some of the discovery sought "will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims" (Abrams v Pecile, 83 AD3d 527, 528 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), it is possible that not all Facebook communications are related to the events that gave rise to plaintiff's cause of action (see Offenback v L.M. Bowman, Inc., 2011 WL 2491371, *2, 2011 US Dist LEXIS 66432, *5-8 [MD Pa 2011]). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a more specific identification of plaintiff's Facebook information that is relevant, in that it contradicts or conflicts with plaintiff's alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses, and other claims.

The postings on plaintiff's online Facebook account, if relevant, are not shielded from discovery merely because plaintiff used the service's privacy settings to restrict access (Romano v Steelcase Inc., 30 Misc 3d 426, 433-434 [2010]), just as relevant matter from a personal diary is discoverable (see Faragiano v Town of Concord, 294 AD2d 893, 894 [2002]).

Dismissal of the appeal from the January 24, 2011 order is warranted because the order does not affect a substantial right and is not otherwise appealable as of right (see Marriott Intl. v Lonny's Hacking Corp., 262 AD2d 10 [1999]; Garcia v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 209 AD2d 208, 209 [1994]; CPLR 5701[a][2][v]).

The last time I posted about facebook was in 2010–Romano v Steelcase Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 06620 (Supreme Court, Suffolk County 2010). It looks like there was an appeal in Romano, but it was dismissed.

Discovery, electronic and otherwise

CPLR § 1021 Substitution procedure; dismissal for failure to substitute; presentation of appeal

CPLR § 1024 Unknown parties

CPLR § 3126 Penalties for refusal to comply with order or to disclose

Henderson-Jones v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 06327 (1st Dept., 2011)

By order entered on June 1, 2010, the court stated, "Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion to strike defendant's answer is denied."

"[I]t is well settled that the drastic remedy of striking a party's pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with a discovery order is appropriate only where the moving party conclusively demonstrates that the non-disclosure was willful, contumacious or due to bad faith" (McGilvery v New York City Tr. Auth., 213 AD2d 322, 324 [1995]). Willful and contumacious behavior can be inferred by a failure to comply with court orders, in the absence of adequate excuses (see Johnson v City of New York, 188 AD2d 302 [1992]; Nunez v City of New York, 37 AD3d 434 [2007]). A party that permits discovery to "trickl[e] in . . [with a] cavalier attitude . . should not escape adverse consequence" (Figdor v City of New York, 33 AD3d 560, 561 [2006]).

As drastic as the penalty of striking an answer is, it serves the important function of deterring obstreporous litigation behavior. Indeed, the Court of Appeals recently made the following observation:

"As this Court has repeatedly emphasized, our court system is dependent on all parties engaged in litigation abiding by the rules of proper practice. The failure to comply with deadlines not only impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and the adjudication of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the position of having to order enforcement remedies to respond to the delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the detriment of the litigants they represent. Chronic noncompliance with deadlines breeds disrespect for the dictates of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and a culture in which cases can linger for years without resolution. Furthermore, those lawyers who engage their best efforts to comply with practice rules are also effectively penalized because they must somehow explain to their clients why they cannot secure timely responses from recalcitrant adversaries, which leads to the erosion of their attorney-client relationships as well. For these reasons, it is important to adhere to the position we declared a decade ago that if the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity" (Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74, 81 [2010] [internal quotation marks, alteration, and citations omitted]).

Defendants' behavior in this matter clearly implicates the values articulated in Gibbs. Plaintiff was required to serve three discovery notices on defendants to determine the identities of the officers who executed the warrant, and to this day defendants have not complied. The information sought is simple and straightforward, and, most importantly, easily discoverable. The discovery demands were made in addition to a FOIL request and the furnishing of an authorization designed to lessen defendants' burden in searching for the appropriate names. Moreover, defendants were ordered by the court, on no fewer than three occasions, to produce documents containing the officers' names or to reveal the names outright. To the extent defendants made any effort to divulge the names of the officers who executed the search warrant, they made the effort only because plaintiff pressed the issue. It is not unreasonable to deduce from this record that had plaintiff not sought enforcement of unequivocal court orders requiring the production of the officers' names, defendants, to this day, would not have provided even the scant information that they eventually provided. Moreover, defendants failed to demonstrate that they even attempted to comply with their discovery obligations. An affidavit regarding the unavailability of documents that are the subject of a discovery order must document a thorough search conducted in good faith. It should include details such as "where the subject records were likely to be kept, what efforts, if any, were made to preserve them, whether such records were routinely destroyed, [and] whether a search [was] conducted in every location where the records were likely to be found" (Jackson v City of New York, 185 AD2d 768, 770 [1992]).

Here, the affidavits submitted by defendants reveal that the efforts that defendants maintain they took to ascertain the names of the officers were so unimaginative and lacking in diligence that it is hard to characterize them as anything other than willfully designed to thwart plaintiff. Searching old desks and lockers is woefully insufficient. As demonstrated by the unchallenged affidavit by plaintiff's expert, the Police Department is a sophisticated bureaucracy with a system for collecting and storing information concerning arrests and prisoner processing that is not limited to the furniture and notebooks assigned to the officers involved. Indeed, defendants did not even attempt to explain why it would have been futile to search the areas and databases suggested by plaintiff's expert. They addressed the expert's opinion only to the extent of impugning his qualifications.

Defendants' argument that plaintiff's request for the documents containing the names of all 50 of the Gang Squad officers was overbroad reveals a disdain for the numerous court orders issued in this case. From the early stages of the litigation, defendants were directed, in absolute terms, to disclose the names of the officers involved in the execution of the warrant on plaintiff's apartment. Thus, the format of plaintiff's initial requests for the information is irrelevant. Defendants could have appealed from the orders, but they did not. That they continue to argue, even now, that plaintiff asked for the documents in an imprecise manner confirms their outright disdain for the court's authority to supervise discovery.

As to the substitution of Sergeant Van Orden, plaintiff demonstrated that she made a diligent inquiry to identify the names of the officers involved before commencing this action (see CPLR 1024; Goldberg v Boatmax://, Inc., 41 AD3d 255 [2007]). She served the unidentified officers by an alternative means of service authorized by the court pursuant to CPLR 308(5) (see Harkness v Doe, 261 AD2d 846 [1999]). Thus, she should have been permitted to substitute Van Orden as a defendant. We reject defendants' position that plaintiff waited too long to move to substitute Van Orden; the substitution was "deemed" effective when plaintiff learned of Van Orden's identity (CPLR § 1024; see Woodburn Ct. Assoc. I v Wingate Mgt. Co., 243 AD2d 1043, 1045 [1997]).

Elias v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 06330 (1st Dept., 2011)

In a June 9, 2010 order, the court directed the City "to respond to [plaintiff's] discovery notice dated 1/15/10 for the location of west side of Riverside Dr at Tiemann PL north to St Clair and south to W 122nd." On or about July 12, 2010, the City responded to the court's June 9, 2010 order. An appended DOT form letter dated July 6, 2010 again advised that a search regarding "Riverside Drive and Tiemann Place, Manhattan" "produced no records" for the two years prior to and including the day of the accident.

In August 2010, plaintiff again moved for an order striking the City's answer on the ground that the City had willfully failed to comply with numerous discovery orders. In opposition, the City, emphasizing the drastic nature of the relief sought, argued that its conduct was not "willful and contumacious" and that when such a showing has not been made, an appropriate sanction for dilatory conduct is to permit a defaulting party "one final opportunity to comply." Further, the City contended that, in its submissions dated July 12, 2010 and May 11, 2010, it had fully complied with the court's June 9, 2010 order and adequately responded to plaintiff's January 15, 2010 supplemental discovery notice.

In an order dated October 13, 2010, the court denied nine of plaintiff's demands, three of them on the ground that "City represents documents have been produced." But the court ordered the City to produce, within thirty days, "written complaints, and/or prior written notices, repair orders, [and] cut forms, for the sidewalk on the west side of Riverside Drive, at its intersection with Tiemann Place, for 2 years prior to the date of accident" and to provide an "affidavit if no documents exist" within 45 days. Finally, the court stated that "[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in the striking of the City's answer (emphasis in original)."

In sum, although over three years had passed since plaintiff had first sought this discovery which is central to the prosecution of his action, and despite the nine court orders directing defendant to comply with outstanding discovery, the motion court acceded to defendant's request to be given one more opportunity to provide the discovery. Defendant has offered no excuse for its failure to produce the documents. Apparently, the imposition by this Court of a significant sanction was not sufficient to deter defendant from continuing its cavalier noncompliance with court-ordered discovery. In our view, the history of defendant's untimely, unresponsive and lax approach to complying with the court's previous orders warrants the striking of defendant's answer (see Byam v City of New York, 68 AD3d 798 [2009]).

Wright v Mount Vernon Hosp., 2011 NY Slip Op 07417 (2nd Dept., 2011)

As a sanction against a party who "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed," a court may issue an order, inter alia, "prohibiting the disobedient party . . . from producing in evidence designated things or items of testimony," or "striking out pleadings" (CPLR 3126[2], [3]). Here, the plaintiff's willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from the plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with orders directing that her deposition be commenced or completed by a date certain, the plaintiff's adjournments of her deposition, and the inadequate excuses offered to explain her noncompliance (see Commisso v Orshan, 85 AD3d 845; Rawlings v Gillert, 78 AD3d 806, 807; Caccioppoli v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 271 AD2d 565, 566). Although the plaintiff's conduct was willful and contumacious, contrary to the contention of the defendant Mount Vernon Hospital, under the circumstances of this case, the sanction of striking the complaint would have been too harsh. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting its motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to the extent of precluding the plaintiff from testifying at trial.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to renew. The additional facts submitted upon renewal were personally known to the plaintiff when the original motion was made, and she did not proffer a reasonable excuse for her failure to present those facts at that time (see Saunds v Estate of Johnson, 29 AD3d 670, 671; Caramoor Capital Group v Blauner, 302 AD2d 550; Caffee v Arnold, 104 AD2d 352).

Kasoff v KVL Audio Visual Servs., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 06651 (1st Dept., 2011)

Plaintiff's motion to strike should have been granted to the extent of prohibiting defendants from offering evidence in support of the contention that plaintiff was fully paid the Miscellaneous commission of $47,731.47, and awarding plaintiff that amount. The record establishes that defendants' counsel actively interfered with discovery by intercepting documents under subpoena to a third party. Defendants also admittedly altered a commission report pertaining to the Miscellaneous account and produced it in the course of discovery as if it were the original business record. These acts, together, evidence a sanctionable pattern of behavior (see 317 W. 87 Assoc. v Dannenberg, 159 AD2d 245, 245-246 [1990]; see also Garnett v Hudson Rent A Car, 258 AD2d 559 [1999]) requiring preclusion.

Facey v Silver Express Cab Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 06549 (2nd Dept., 2011)

As a sanction against a party who "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed," a court may issue an order, inter alia, "prohibiting the disobedient party . . . from producing in evidence designated things or items of testimony" or "striking out pleadings" (CPLR 3126 [2], [3]). A court may invoke the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, however, only upon a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious (see Argo v Queens Surface Corp., 58 AD3d 656 [2009]; Paca v City of New York, 51 AD3d 991, 993 [2008]). Here, the record does not support a finding that the appellants willfully and contumaciously failed to produce the defendant Mohammad Akbar for a deposition. Under the circumstances, the appropriate remedy was an order precluding the appellants from calling Akbar as a witness at trial (cf. Patel v DeLeon, 43 AD3d 432, 433 [2007]; Williams v Ryder TRS, Inc., 29 AD3d 784, 785 [2006]).

Tener v Cremer, 2011 NY Slip Op 06543 (1st Dept., 2011)

The Uniform Rules addressing the discovery of ESI are fairly recent. They took effect in 2009. However, the Commercial Division Rules have addressed discovery of ESI for some time. Rule 8(b) of the rules contains requirements similar to those in the Uniform Rules. The Commercial Division for Supreme Court, Nassau County has built on Commercial Division rule 8(b) to develop the most sophisticated rules concerning discovery of ESI in the State of New York. That court also publishes in depth guidelines for the discovery of ESI (the Nassau Guidelines). While aimed at parties, the Nassau Guidelines are appropriate in cases, such as this, where a nonparty's data is at issue.

ESI is difficult to destroy permanently. Deletion usually only makes the data more difficult to access. Accordingly, discovery rules contemplate data recovery. For instance, the Uniform Rules include the "anticipated cost of data recovery and proposed initial allocation of such cost" in the scope of electronic discovery (Uniform Rules for Trial Courts [22 NYCRR] § 202.12[c][3]).

The Nassau Guidelines urge that parties should be prepared to address the production of ESI that may have been deleted. The Nassau Guidelines state that at the preliminary conference, counsel for the parties should be prepared to discuss:

"identification, in reasonable detail, of ESI that is or is not reasonably accessible, without undue burden or cost, the methods of storing and retrieving ESI that is not reasonably accessible, and the anticipated costs and efforts involved in retrieving such ESI."

(New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division, Nassau County, Guidelines for Discovery of Electronically Stored Information [ESI]), effective June 1, 2009, II[c][4]).

The Nassau Guidelines also suggest that the parties be prepared to discuss "the need for certified forensic specialists and/or experts to assist with the search for and production of ESI" (id. at II [c][13]) Most important, the Nassau Guidelines do not rule out the discoverability of deleted data, but rather suggest a cost/benefit analysis involving how difficult and costly it would be to retrieve it:

"As the term is used herein, ESI is not to be deemed inaccessible' based solely on its source or type of storage media. Inaccessibility is based on the burden and expense of recovering and producing the ESI and the relative need for the data" (id. at IV).^[FN4]

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure take a similar, although slightly more restrictive, approach. Rule 45 provides specific protections to non-parties. A person responding to a subpoena "need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost" (Fed Rules Civ Pro rule 45[d][1][D]). Moreover, "non-party status is a significant factor in determining whether the burden imposed by a subpoena is undue" (Whitlow v Martin, 263 FRD 507, 512 [CD Ill 2009]). Nevertheless, a federal court may still "order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C)" (Fed Rules Civ Pro rule 45[d][1][D]). Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii) requires a court to limit any discovery: (1) "that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative," (2) "can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive," (3) "where the party has already had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action" or (4) when "the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of discovery in resolving the issues." The Advisory Committee Notes explain that the costs of retrieving the information are properly part of this analysis.

Meanwhile, some federal courts have suggested strict limits on the discovery of specific types of data that are typically overwritten or ephemeral. For example, the Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program has adopted several "principles" to guide litigants through the discovery of ESI. In particular, Principle 2.04 governing the scope of preservation states that certain categories of ESI "generally are not discoverable in most cases." (Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Committee, Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program, 14-15, Oct. 1, 2009). These categories include:

1 "Deleted," slack," fragmented," or "unallocated" data on hard drives; 2 Random access memory (RAM) or other ephemeral data; 3 On-line access data such as temporary internet files, history, cache, cookies etc; 4 Data in metadata fields that are frequently updated automatically, such as last-opened dates; 5 Backup data that is substantially duplicative of data that is more accessible elsewhere; and 6 Other forms of ESI whose preservation requires extraordinary affirmative measures that are not utilized in the ordinary course of business (id.). However, the federal courts may still order the discovery of data from these sources in an appropriate case (see Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. 269 FRD 497, 524 [D Md. 2010]["[t]he general duty to preserve may also include deleted data, data in slack spaces, backup tapes, legacy systems, and metadata."]); Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 245 FRD 443 [CD Cal. 2007] [ordering production of server log data]). We also note Judge Scheindlin's groundbreaking decision in Zubulake v UBS Warburg, LLC, 217 FRD 309, 316 [SDNY 2003] [in developing framework for cost/benefit analysis, court noted that discovery obligations apply not only to "electronic documents that are currently in use, but also [to] documents that may have been deleted and now reside only on backup disks."]).

Based on the specific facts of this case, we find that the Nassau Guidelines provide a practical approach. To exempt inaccessible data presumptively from discovery might encourage quick deletion as a matter of corporate policy, well before the spectre of litigation is on the horizon and the duty to preserve it attaches. A cost/benefit analysis, as the Nassau Guidelines provide, does not encourage data destruction because discovery could take place regardless. Moreover, similar to rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), the approach of the Nassau Guidelines, has the benefit of giving the court flexibility to determine literally whether the discovery is worth the cost and effort of retrieval.

Here, plaintiff has variously described the information it seeks as stored in a "cache" file, as "unallocated" data or somewhere in backup data. Data from these sources is difficult to access. But, plaintiff's only chance to confirm the identity of the person who allegedly defamed her may lie with NYU. Thus, plaintiff has demonstrated "good cause" (see Fed Rules Civ Pro rule 45[d][1][D]) necessitating a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether the needs of the case warrant retrieval of the data.

However, the record is insufficient to permit this court to undertake a cost/benefit analysis. Accordingly, we remand to Supreme Court for a hearing to determine at least: (1) whether the identifying information was written over, as NYU maintains, or whether it is somewhere else, such as in unallocated space as a text file; (2) whether the retrieval software plaintiff suggested can actually obtain the data; (3) whether the data will identify actual persons who used the internet on April 12, 2009 via the IP address plaintiff identified; (4) which of those persons accessed Vitals.com and (5) a budget for the cost of the data retrieval, including line item(s) correlating the cost to NYU for the disruption ^[FN5]. Some of these questions (particularly [1] and [2]) may involve credibility determinations. Until the court has this minimum information, it cannot assess "the burden and expense of recovering and producing the ESI and the relative need for the data" (Nassau Guidelines) and concomitantly whether the data is so "inaccessible" that NYU does not have the ability to comply with the subpoena. That NYU is a nonparty should also figure into the equation (see Whitlow 263 FRD at 512). Of course in the event the data is retrievable without undue burden or cost, the court should give NYU a reasonable time to comply with the subpoena.

Further, it is worth mentioning that CPLR 3111 and 3122(d) require the requesting party to defray the "reasonable production expenses" of a nonparty. Accordingly, if the court finds after the hearing that NYU has the ability to produce the data, the court should allocate the costs of this production to plaintiff and should consider whether to include in that allocation the cost of disruption to NYU's normal business operations. In this latter consideration, the court should also take into account that plaintiff waited one year before sending the subpoena and preservation letter.

The court also erred in transferring the case to Civil Court. Although the complaint seeks damages, it also seeks equitable relief that is not within the jurisdiction of Civil Court (see CPLR 325[d]; W.H.P. 20 v Oktagon Corp., 251 AD2d 58, 59 [1998]).

Accordingly the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered September 14, 2010, that denied plaintiff's motion to hold nonparty NYU in contempt for failing to comply with a judicial subpoena, should be reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a hearing on whether the information plaintiff seeks is "inaccessible" and hence whether NYU has the ability to comply with the subpoena. The order of the same court and Justice, entered September 24, 2010, that sua sponte transferred the action to the Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325(d), should be reversed, on the law, without costs, and the order of transfer vacated.

Hoi Wah Lai v Mack, 2011 NY Slip Op 08563 (2nd Dept., 2011)

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the appellants' answer. A court may strike an answer as a sanction if a defendant "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed" (CPLR 3126; see Thompson v Dallas BBQ, 84 AD3d 1221; Mazza v Seneca, 72 AD3d 754). However, the drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the defendant's failure to comply with discovery demands was willful or contumacious (see Polsky v Tuckman, 85 AD3d 750; Moray v City of Yonkers, 76 AD3d 618; Pirro Group, LLC v One Point St., Inc., 71 AD3d 654; Dank v Sears Holding Mgt. Corp., 69 AD3d 557). Here, the plaintiffs failed to make such a showing. At the time the plaintiffs moved to strike the appellants' answer, the action had been pending for less than five months, the appellants had not missed any court-ordered deadlines, and, in fact, the appellants had already served a response to the plaintiffs' notice to produce (see Palomba v Schindler El. Corp., 74 AD3d 1037, 1038). In addition, the motion was not supported by an affirmation of good faith, as required by 22 NYCRR 202.7 (see Quiroz v Beitia, 68 AD3d 957, 960; Dennis v City of New York, 304 AD2d 611, 613).

Ferguson v Hess Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 08478 (1st Dept., 2011)

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating plaintiff's default and restoring the action to the calendar. The action has merit, plaintiff has substantially complied with discovery and retained new counsel, and there is a strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits (Chevalier v 368 E. 148th St. Assoc., LLC, 80 AD3d 411, 413-414 [2011]). In view of the foregoing, we need not reach defendants' argument regarding plaintiff's motion to renew.

Hearsay (4518)

CPLR R. 4518 Business records

Steinberg v New York City Tr. Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 07480 (1st Dept., 2011)

Supreme Court correctly found that, as movant, defendant failed to show that it did not breach a duty to plaintiff. Defendant relied on hearsay testimony and accident reports submitted without an adequate foundation for their admission as business records (see Wen Ying Ji v Rockrose Dev. Corp., 34 AD3d 253, 254 [2006]; compare Buckley v J.A. Jones/GMO, 38 AD3d 461, 462-463 [2007]). In view of the testimony of defendant's foreman that it was necessary to safeguard the tools from theft and that defendant's other employees had seen Williams hovering around them, talking and yelling, it cannot be found as a matter of law that Williams's criminal acts were unforeseeable and therefore a superseding cause of plaintiff's injuries (see Bell v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 90 NY2d 944 [1997])

Mallen v Farmingdale Lanes, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 08569 (2nd Dept., 2011)

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff's expert affidavit was speculative and conclusory and, therefore, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Fotiatis v Cambridge Hall Tenants Corp., 70 AD3d 631, 632; Pappas v Cherry Cr., Inc., 66 AD3d 658, 659; Rivas-Chirino v Wildlife Conservation Socy., 64 AD3d 556, 558). Further, the plaintiff's contention that incident reports regarding prior accidents raised a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a dangerous condition or whether the defendant had notice of any such condition is speculative, as there was no evidence that those accidents were similar in nature to the plaintiff's accident (see Hyde v County of Rensselaer, 51 NY2d 927, 929; Gjonaj v Otis El. Co., 38 AD3d 384, 385). The plaintiff's reliance upon a statement as to the cause of her accident contained in an incident report is also unavailing, as the report contained hearsay and the plaintiff failed to lay the proper foundation for its admission as a business record (see CPLR 4518[a]; Roldan v New York Univ., 81 AD3d 625, 627; Stock v Otis El. Co., 52 AD3d 816, 817; Daliendo v Johnson, 147 AD2d 312, 321). "Although hearsay evidence may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, it is insufficient to bar summary judgment if it is the only evidence submitted" (Stock v Otis El. Co., 52 AD3d at 816-817 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Accordingly, since the hearsay evidence, by itself, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, and the other evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant's motion also failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Yant v Mile Sq. Transp., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 07913 (1st Dept., 2011)

Plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by stating that he was injured when defendants' school bus hit the rear of the bus on which he was riding (see Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 271 [1999]). In opposition, defendants raised a triable issue of fact by attaching the complete police accident report, which listed all of the passengers on the buses and did not include plaintiff's name. This document, which was admissible as a business record (see Holliday v Hudson Armored Car & Courier Serv., 301 AD2d 392, 396 [2003], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 100 NY2d 636 [2003]), raised the question of whether plaintiff was actually a passenger on the bus (see Perry v City of New York, 44 AD3d 311 [2007]). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion should have been denied and defendants should have been permitted to conduct discovery to determine whether or not plaintiff was indeed a passenger (see CPLR 3212[f]; Bartee v D & S Fire Protection Corp., 79 AD3d 508 [2010]).

Judicial Notice CPLR 4511

CPLR R. 4511(b) When judicial notice may be taken without request; when it shall be taken on request.

Mendoza v Mortlen Realty Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 07520 (1st Dept., 2011)

The evidence submitted by defendants in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a factual issue to defeat summary judgment. Although defendants contend that the court improperly considered documents submitted by plaintiffs to rebut the argument that the building is not a multiple dwelling because they were unauthenticated and/or uncertified, defendants failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see DiLeo v Blumberg, 250 AD2d 364, 366 [1998]). Were we to review this issue, we would find that the motion court properly considered the certificate of occupancy as well as printouts from the website of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development which established that the building had been classified as a multiple dwelling (see CPLR 4511(b); Elkaim v Elkaim, 176 AD2d 116 [1991], appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 1072 [1991]).

Missing document charge

Krin v Lenox Hill Hosp., 2011 NY Slip Op 07498 (1st Dept., 2011)

The court properly exercised its discretion in directing that a missing document charge be given at the end of the trial in this case. While the record presents questions about whether
the pertinent document, a cosmetic operative report which defendants failed to turn over to plaintiff, ever existed in their file, there exists sufficient evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude that defendant's dictation of this report was transcribed and was, at one time, in his file. Defendant, Thomas Romo, admits that he dictated the document for transcription, and the functional operative report from the same operation was discovered in his file. Thus, the issue as to whether any spoliation of evidence actually occurred should be presented to the jury, along with the inferences to be drawn therefrom (see Marcano v Calvary Hosp., Inc., 13 AD3d 109 [2004]). Defendants will then be permitted to argue to the jury that the document either never existed in his file, is irrelevant to the issue of this case, that other documents cover the same information, or any other issue he believes will persuade the jury that no adverse inference is warranted. Under the circumstances of this case, the court's sanction was "appropriately tailored to achieve a fair result" (Balaskonis v HRH Constr. Corp., 1 AD3d 120, 121 [2003][internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

Proving a negative

Arias v Skyline Windows, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 07725 (1st Dept., 2011)

Defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff maintenance worker alleges that he was injured when, while pulling a trash container, he slipped on broken glass and fell, resulting in the trash container rolling over his foot. Defendant was the company that had been hired to replace and install new windows at the building where plaintiff worked. Defendant failed to demonstrate that its employees did not perform work at the location until after the day of the subject accident. Although an "affidavit[] indicating that a search of business records had demonstrated a negative is admissible" and can substantiate a summary judgment movant's initial burden (Dickson v City of New York, 43 AD3d 809 [2007]; see Piccinich v New York Stock Exch., 257 AD2d 438 [1999]), here, the affidavit of defendant's director of field operations for volume was inconsistent with his own deposition testimony and indicated a lack of "familiarity with the . . . project at issue" (Barraillier v City of New York, 12 AD3d 168, 169 [2004]).

Even were we to determine that defendant met its initial burden, plaintiff's opposition raised triable issues as to whether defendant's employees were responsible for creating the condition that caused his injuries. Plaintiff testified that he observed defendant's employees at the building in the days prior to the accident and the affidavit of plaintiff's coworker is consistent with plaintiff's testimony. Although defendant disputes the veracity of the coworker's affidavit, its truth is presumed at this procedural posture where the court's duty is to find issues rather than determine them (see Powell v HIS Contrs., Inc., 75 AD3d 463, 465 [2010]).

More than one 3212 = no. And other stuff. And “a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery”

Courthouse Corporate Ctr., LLC v Schulman, 2011 NY Slip Op 07801 (2nd Dept., 2011)

The defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action was based on matters that could have been, but were not, raised in the defendants' prior motion for summary judgment. Multiple motions for summary judgment in the same action should be discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly-discovered evidence or other sufficient cause (see NYP Holdings, Inc. v McClier Corp., 83 AD3d 426, 427; Flomenhaft v Fine Arts Museum of Long Is., 255 AD2d 290; Dillon v Dean, 170 AD2d 574). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants' motion.

Mintz & Gold, LLP v Zimmerman, 2011 NY Slip Op 08490 (1st Dept., 2011)

This was defendants' second motion for summary judgment. The motion court should have denied it on that basis, as defendants did not present sufficient cause for their successive motions (see NYP Holdings, Inc. v McClier Corp., 83 AD3d 426 [2011]). Even were we to reach the merits we would affirm because plaintiff was not required to plead special damages to set forth its claim under Civil Rights Law § 70, (see Civil Rights Law § 71).

Rubistello v Bartolini Landscaping, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 06483 (2nd Dept., 2011)

On its motion for summary judgment, the defendant bore the burden of " affirmatively demonstrat[ing] the merit of its claim or defense'" (Doe v Orange-Ulster Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 4 AD3d 387, 389, quoting George Larkin Trucking Co. v Lisbon Tire Mart, 185 AD2d 614, 615) that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm as a result of a failure to exercise reasonable care in the performance of snow removal services. The defendant could not satisfy its burden by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's proof (see Doe v Orange-Ulster Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 4 AD3d at 388-389; George Larkin Trucking Co. v Lisbon Tire Mart, 185 AD2d at 615). Having failed to come forward with evidence to negate this Espinal exception, the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on this issue, and the Supreme Court properly denied its motion.

Bank of Am., N.A. v Hillside Cycles, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 07788 (2nd Dept., 2011)

A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment (see Venables v Sagona, 46 AD3d 672, 673; Amico v Melville Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 39 AD3d 784, 785; Betz v N.Y.C. Premier Props., Inc., 38 AD3d 815; cf. McFadyen Consulting Group, Inc. v Puritan's Pride, Inc., 87 AD3d 620). Here, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, as premature, that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint, inasmuch as discovery may result in disclosure of evidence relevant to the causes of action asserted in the complaint (see CPLR 3212[f]; Bond v DeMasco, 84 AD3d 1292, 1293; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v LaMattina & Assoc., Inc., 59 AD3d 578; Betz v N.Y.C. Premier Props., Inc., 38 AD3d at 815). The Supreme Court erred, however, in denying, as premature, those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the defendant's first, second, third, and twelfth affirmative defenses, and, in effect, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the sixth affirmative defense. The plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that those defenses were either inapplicable to this breach of contract action or without merit, and that discovery could not result in disclosure of evidence relevant to those affirmative defenses (see Castrol, Inc. v Parm Trading Co. of N.Y.C., 228 AD2d 633, 634). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see St. Clare Dev. Corp. v Porges, 70 AD3d 925; cf. Family-Friendly Media, Inc. v Recorder Tel. Network, 74 AD3d 738, 739; Tornheim v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 73 AD3d 747, 749).

Robiou v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 08461 (1st Dept., 2009)

The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiff's cross motion to strike defendant's answer (see Talansky v Schulman, 2 AD3d 355, 361-62 [2003]; Gross v Edmer Sanitary Supply Co., 201 AD2d 390, 391 [1994]). Moreover, we agree with the motion court's conclusion that further discovery could not lead to "facts essential to justify opposition" (CPLR 3212[f]), warranting a denial of defendant's summary judgment motion (see Auerbach v Bennett, 47 NY2d 619, 636 [1979]; Banque Nationale de Paris v 1567 Broadway

The perils of a reply to a counterclaim

Rossini Excavating Corp. v Shelter Rock Bldrs., LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 07735 (1st Dept., 2011)

There was no default in answering. Plaintiff waived its objections to the untimeliness of defendants' answer by serving a reply to the counterclaims after rejecting the late answer and moving for a default judgment (cf. Oparaji v Duran 18 AD3d 725). In view of the foregoing, whether defendant demonstrated the grounds required for vacatur of a default and the other issues arising from the subsequent chain of events are academic.

Estoppels abound

Maybaum v Maybaum, 2011 NY Slip Op 07816 (2nd Dept., 3011)

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to strike stated paragraphs of the defendant's counterclaim on the grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and equitable estoppel. The allegations in the defendant's counterclaim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, and the allegations in the plaintiff's family offense petition, did not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions. "It is not always clear whether particular claims are part of the same transaction for res judicata purposes. A pragmatic' test has been applied to make this determination—analyzing whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage'" (Xiao Yang Chen v Fischer, 6 NY3d 94, 100-101, quoting Restatement [Second] of Judgments § 24[2]; see Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193). Applying this test, we conclude that the family offense petition and counterclaim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment do not form a convenient trial unit. Thus, the defendant is not precluded from litigating her counterclaim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment in the separate action in the Supreme Court.

"Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party . . . , whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same'" (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 349, quoting Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500). "The doctrine applies if the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action, and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action" (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d at 349). "[C]ollateral estoppel effect will only be given to matters actually litigated and determined in a prior action" (Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 456 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "An issue is not actually litigated if, for example, there has been a default, a confession of liability, a failure to place a matter in issue by proper pleading or even because of a stipulation" (id. at 456-457). Here, the issue of whether the plaintiff committed certain acts against the defendant was never determined in the Family Court proceeding, and the defendant's participation in the stipulation to withdraw her family offense petition, with prejudice, cannot be construed to be the kind of determination following a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues that would be necessary to collaterally estop the defendant from establishing that the plaintiff committed the alleged acts (see North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc. v Aetna US Healthcare, Inc., 27 AD3d 439, 440-441; Singleton Mgt. v Compere, 243 AD2d 213, 216-218).

Further, "[t]he circumstances set forth by plaintiff simply do not rise to a level of unconscionability warranting application of equitable estoppel" (American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718; see Geller v Reuben Gittelman Hebrew Day School, 34 AD3d 730, 731-732).

Since the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and equitable estoppel do not preclude the defendant from litigating certain of the allegations in her counterclaim that were alleged in her family offense petition, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(b) to dismiss the plaintiff's fourth affirmative defense alleging that the defendant's counterclaim was barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and equitable estoppel, as that defense has no merit.

The Supreme Court further erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to strike stated paragraphs of the defendant's counterclaim, in effect, as time-barred on the ground they alleged acts occurring more than five years prior to the commencement of the action. The allegations in the counterclaim relating to incidents occurring more than five years before the commencement of the action may be properly included to the extent that those allegations may be relevant to an evaluation of a party's claim for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment in the context of the entire marriage (see Vestal v Vestal, 273 AD2d 461, 462; Miglio v Miglio, 147 AD2d 460, 460-461). Further, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3016(c) to strike stated paragraphs in the counterclaim for lack of specificity and thereupon directing the defendant to serve and file an amended counterclaim. The "allegations sufficiently apprised the [plaintiff] of the accusations against him so as to enable him to prepare a defense" (Nolletti v Nolletti, 2 AD3d 421, 422; see Kapchan v Kapchan, 104 AD2d 358; Pfeil v Pfeil, 100 AD2d 725). Therefore, the Supreme Court also should have granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(b) to dismiss the plaintiff's third affirmative defense alleging that the counterclaim was insufficiently specific to meet the requirements of CPLR 3016(c).

Farren v Lisogorsky, 2011 NY Slip Op 06366 (2nd Dept., 2011)

Prior to answering, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and for an award of sanctions. The Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), holding that the doctrine of res judicata precluded the instant action. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

" [T]he general doctrine of res judicata gives binding effect to the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and prevents the parties to an action, and those in privity with them, from subsequently relitigating any questions that were necessarily decided therein'" (Landau, P.C. v LaRossa, Mitchell, & Ross, 11 NY3d 8, 13, quoting Matter of Grainger [Shea Enters.], 309 NY 605, 616). Although the doctrine of res judicata may be invoked where there is either a final judgment in an action between the parties, or a stipulation of settlement withdrawing a complaint or cause of action with prejudice (see Liberty Assoc. v Etkin, 69 AD3d 681, 682-683), to establish "privity" of the kind required for the application of res judicata, the party raising a res judicata defense must demonstrate a connection between the party to be precluded and a party to the prior action "such that the interests of the nonparty can be said to have been represented in the prior proceeding" (Green v Santa Fe Indus., 70 NY2d 244, 253).

The doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to the instant action, as the plaintiffs never asserted any claim against the defendant in his capacity as an employee of Metropolitan, and seek here to hold him liable solely in his professional capacity as a pharmacist (see City of New York v Welsbach Elec. Corp., 9 NY3d 124, 127-128; Pawling Lake Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v Greiner, 72 AD3d 665). The fact that the plaintiffs sued one tortfeasor, Metropolitan, does not automatically preclude them from suing another tortfeasor, such as the defendant herein, in a subsequent action (see Seaman v Fichet-Bauche N. Am., 176 AD2d 793, 794). In addition, the defendant inaptly sought to invoke res judicata against the plaintiffs based on his alleged privity with Metropolitan. Since there was an insufficient basis upon which to conclude that the defendant was in privity with Metropolitan, the Supreme Court incorrectly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint based on the doctrine of res judicata.

Uzamere v Senator Ehigie Edobor Uzamere, 2011 NY Slip Op 08583 (2nd Dept., 2011)

The Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of the complaint based on the doctrine of res judicata. The plaintiff previously commenced two prior federal court actions, one in the Eastern District of New York (hereinafter the Eastern District action) and one in the Southern District of New York based on the same alleged facts that form the basis of the complaint herein. In light of authority stating that a court should apply the rules of res judicata followed in the jurisdiction that rendered the earlier court decision (see Insurance Co. of State of Pa. v HSBC Bank USA, 10 NY3d 32, 38 n 3, citing Marrese v American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 US 373, 380-381; Langerman v Langerman, 303 NY 465, 474; Restatement [Second] of Conflict of Laws § 95, Comment[e]), we apply federal res judicata law in determining whether the doctrine of res judicata bars this action.

"In federal court, subsequent litigation is prohibited if a prior court ruling was (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a case involving the same parties or their privies, and (4) involving the same cause of action'" (Insurance Co. of State of Pa. v HSBC Bank USA, 10 NY3d at 37, quoting EDP Med. Computer Sys., Inc. v United States, 480 F3d 621, 624).

Here, the Eastern District action resulted in a dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that dismissal was a final adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction (see Federated Department Stores, Inc. v Moitie, 452 US 394, 399 n 3; Angel v Bullington, 330 US 183, 190). Furthermore, the Eastern District action and this action involve the same parties or their privies (see Akhenaten v Najee, LLC, 544 F Supp 2d 320, 328-329), and involve the same cause of action. Specifically, the Eastern District complaint and the instant complaint arise out of the same "nucleus of operative facts" and, thus, the causes of action asserted in this litigation could have been asserted in the Eastern District action (Waldman v Village of Kiryas Joel, 207 F3d 105, 108). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, it is not clear that the Eastern District would have, as a matter of discretion, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the State law causes of action asserted herein (see Troy v Goord, 300 AD2d 1086; cf. McLearn v Cowen & Co., 48 NY2d 696, 698; Urlic v Insurance Co. of State of Penn., 259 AD2d 1, 4).