Category: [App Div 1st Dept]

4511(b)

Marshall v Fleming, 2018 NY Slip Op 03441 [1st Dept. 2018]

We take judicial notice of the subsequent decisions in the Australian action, the contents of which are undisputed (see CPLR 4511[b]; Matter of Kevin McK. v Elizabeth A.E., 111 AD3d 124, 133 [1st Dept 2013]). The decisions reflect that on August 24, 2017, the New South Wales Supreme Court (Payne, J.), issued a posttrial verdict in defendants' favor, dismissed the amended statement of claim, and directed plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs of the proceedings (see Marshall v Fleming [2017] NSWSC 1107). By order dated December 5, 2017, Justice Payne, inter alia, directed plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs of the trial, 50% of the costs of defendants' September 7, 2017 motion, and the costs of defendants' October 23, 2017 motion (see Marshall v Fleming, [No 2] [2017] NSWSC 1679).

 

Venue

Janis v Janson Supermarkets LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03333 [1st Dept. 2018]

Wakefern, a foreign corporation, submitted a copy of its application for authorization to conduct business filed with the Secretary of State, in which it identified New York County as "[t]he county within this state where its office is to be located" (Business Corporation Law § 1304[a][5]). Wakefern's designation of New York County in its application is controlling for venue purposes, even if it does not actually have an office in New York County (see Crucen v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., 139 AD3d 538 [1st Dept 2016]; Shetty v Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, 38 AD3d 202 [1st Dept 2007]; Job v Subaru Leasing Corp., 30 AD3d 159 [1st Dept 2006]; CPLR 503[c]).

Kochan v Target Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03445 [1st Dept. 2018]

Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting Target's motion to change venue to Suffolk County even though plaintiff properly placed venue in New York County based upon Target's principal place of business at the time the action was commenced (see CPLR 503[a], [c]). The motor vehicle accident happened in Suffolk County, plaintiffs and codefendants live in that county, the decedent received her medical treatment there (see Lopez v Chaliwit, 268 AD2d 377 [1st Dept 2000]). Target also submitted the affidavits of two Suffolk County police officers, who averred that they were involved in the investigation including interviewing witnesses at the accident location and that they would be inconvenienced by having to travel to New York County because it would cause them to be absent from their police duties for a full day (see Kennedy v C.F. Galleria at White Plains, 2 AD3d 222, 223 [1st Dept 2003]).

That the police officers signed affidavits in favor of the motion to change venue establishes that they were aware of the action and demonstrates that they are willing to testify at trial. It was proper for the motion court to consider the police officers' convenience, because their testimony regarding their investigation as to how the accident happened bears on liability (see Hoogland v Transport Expressway, Inc., 24 AD3d 191 [1st Dept 2005]). Furthermore, the police officers' affidavits are not insufficient because they do not set forth their home addresses, since it is undisputed that they work in Suffolk County (see

Gorodetsky v Bridgewater Wholesalers, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03122 [2d Dept. 2018]

Here, the defendants failed to disclose the addresses of all but one of the prospective witnesses, made only conclusory statements that the prospective witnesses would be inconvenienced, and failed to establish the manner or extent to which those witnesses would be inconvenienced (see Ambroise v United Parcel Serv. of Am. Inc., 143 AD3d at 928; Matter of Supplier Distribution Concepts, Inc., 80 AD3d 869, 871). With regard to those witnesses who were New York State police officers, while "the convenience of local government officials, such as police officers, is of paramount importance because they should not be kept from their duties unnecessarily" (Lafferty v Eklecco, LLC, 34 AD3d 754, 755), here, only conclusory statements, without any details, were provided as to how those witnesses would be inconvenienced. As such, these statements were insufficient to establish that those witnesses would be inconvenienced if venue were not changed.

An expert with no facts

Pascocello v Jibone, 2018 NY Slip Op 03466 [1st Dept. 2018]

An expert's opinion "must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness" (Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 725 [1984] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Roques v Noble, 73 AD3d 204, 206 [1st Dept 2010]), and in the absence of such record support, an expert's opinion is without probative force (see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544 [2002]). Here, Supreme Court properly precluded Dr. Toosi from offering an opinion based on photographs for which no proper foundation had been established.

John Doe–CPLR 1024

CPLR 1024: Unknown parties

A party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his name and identity as is known. If the name or remainder of the name becomes known all subsequent proceedings shall be taken under the true name and all prior proceedings shall be deemed amended accordingly.

Markov v Stack's LLC (Delaware), 2018 NY Slip Op 03238 [1st Dept. 2018]

The motion court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was served after the statutory limitations period had expired. Plaintiff's claims arose on January 14, 2008. The original complaint in this action, which was filed on January 6, 2014 (just days before the six-year statute of limitations expired), did not name Stack's LLC as a defendant, nor did it name defendant Stack's LLC (Delaware). The amended complaint, which for the first time named Stack's LLC (Delaware) as a defendant, was not filed until January 24, 2014 — more than a week after the statute had run. Plaintiff cannot properly rely on CPLR 1024 as a shield from the statute of limitations. Even assuming that the appellation "John Doe" referred to a corporation rather than a natural person, the complaint's description of the John Doe defendant was not described in such a way as to fairly apprise Stack's LLC (Delaware) that it was an intended defendant (see Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 26, 29—30 [2d Dept 2009]; see Tucker v Lorieo, 291 AD2d 261, 262 [1st Dept 2002]). Thus, the inadequate description rendered the action jurisdictionally defective (Thas v Dayrich Trading, Inc., 78 AD3d 1163, 1165 [2d Dept 2010]).

Overbroad Discovery

Doe v Bronx Preparatory Charter Sch., 2018 NY Slip Op 02898 [1st Dept. 2018]

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to impose sanctions on plaintiffs or to compel further disclosure of the infant plaintiff's social media and cell phone history, since defendant failed to submit papers necessary to determine whether plaintiffs had not complied with a prior discovery order (see Nyadzi v Ki Chul Lee, 129 AD3d 645 [1st Dept 2015]; Ventura v Ozone Park Holding Corp., 84 AD3d 516, 517—518 [1st Dept 2011]). Further, there was no showing that plaintiffs wilfully failed to comply with any discovery order, since they provided access to the infant plaintiff's social media accounts and cell phone records for a period of two months before the date on which she was allegedly attacked on defendant's premises to the present, which was a reasonable period of time. Defendant's demands for access to social media accounts for five years prior to the incident, and to cell phone records for two years prior to the incident, were overbroad and not reasonably tailored to obtain discovery relevant to the issues in the case (see Forman v Henkin, 30 NY3d 656, 665 [2018]).

120 days, give or take

Foo-Lu Co. v Rojas, 2018 NY Slip Op 02772 [2d Dept. 2018]

The Supreme Court also erred in awarding summary judgment to Fong. It is undisputed that Fong's motion was untimely, having been made 309 days after the filing of the note of issue, or 189 days after the expiration of the 120-day statutory deadline (see CPLR 3212[a]; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Weisblum, 143 AD3d 866; Giambona v Hines, 104 AD3d 811). Even assuming that the court granted an oral application by Fong for leave to file the late motion, as Fong's counsel represented in his papers, such determination would have been an improvident exercise of discretion under the circumstances presented, since leave can be granted only upon a showing of good cause "for the delay in making the motion" (Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652), and no such showing appears in the record (see Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Weisblum, 143 AD3d at 869; cf. Matter of Gilmore, 131 AD3d 1058). Fong's failure to establish good cause for his delay warranted denial of the motion, "without consideration of the merits thereof" (Jones v City of New York, 130 AD3d 686, 687; see Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Weisblum, 143 AD3d at 869; Carrasco v Weissman, 120 AD3d 534, 536; Giambona v Hines, 104 AD3d at 812).

Reeps v BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02907 [1st Dept. 2018]

Prior court orders and stipulations between the parties show that the parties, with the court's consent, charted a procedural course that deviated from the path established by the CPLR and allowed for defendants' filing of this round of summary judgment motions more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue (see Corchado v City of New York, 64 AD3d 429 [1st Dept 2009]). Thus, the motions were timely, and we remand the matter to the motion court for a full consideration of their merits (see Fomina v DUB Realty, LLC, 156 AD3d 539 [1st Dept 2017]).

In considering the merits, the court should consider plaintiff's new and recast expert affidavits submitted in opposition to the motions, which were first filed in 2016 (see CPLR 3212[b]), after holding a hearing in accordance with Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [1923]) to determine whether the expert affidavits on exposure and general causation (see Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 448 [2006]) are adequately supported in the medical and scientific literature.

Notice of motion

Bank of Am., N.A. v Diaz, 2018 NY Slip Op 02421 [1st Dept 2018]

As an initial matter, plaintiff asserts that defendant's motion was procedurally improper, in that he did not specify the CPLR provision under which his cross motion was made. Although defendant did not cite a specific section of the CPLR, it is abundantly clear, from his affirmation in support of his cross motion to dismiss and opposition to judgment of foreclosure and sale, that he is asserting that plaintiff failed to obtain jurisdiction over him as the grounds for dismissal. It is clear from the content of the motion papers that defendant intended to make his motion under CPLR 5015(a)(4) (cf. Caba v Rai, 63 AD3d 578 [1st Dept 2009], finding that defendant was not entitled to relief under CPLR 5015(a)(4) because "[n]owhere in her motion papers, however, did defendant suggest that the action should be dismissed because the court lacked personal jurisdiction…").

discovery and a retaining lien

Andrade v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 02126 [1st Dept 2018]

The motion court should have granted plaintiffs' motion to vacate the sua sponte order directing them to produce disclosure to defendants, as defendants' answer had been stricken by prior order of the court. Accordingly, defendants were not entitled to any further discovery, including discovery in preparation for an inquest (see Servais v Silk Nail Corp., 96 AD3d 546, 547 [1st Dept 2012]).

To the extent the motion court ordered plaintiffs to provide disclosure already submitted to defendants' former counsel, a different result is not warranted. Assuming defendants are unable to access their case file due to a retaining lien, the court improperly facilitated a "work around" of such lien (see Law Firm of Ravi Batra, P.C. v Rabinowich, 77 AD3d 532 [1st Dept 2010]; Warsop v Novik, 50 AD3d 608 [1st Dept 2008]; see also Artim v Artim, 109 AD2d 811, 812 [2d Dept 1985]). If there is no retaining lien, defendants should seek an order to compel former counsel's production of the discovery.

CPLR 201

Whitney Lane Holdings, LLC v Don Realty, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01519 [1st Dept. 2018]

We further reject defendants' contention that the survival provision in paragraph 1.3 of the addendum limited the time to commence a breach of contract action to one year. Parties to a contract may agree in writing to shorten the period of time in which to commence an action provided the intent to do so is expressed in clear terms and the time period is reasonable (see CPLR 201; John J. Kassner & Co. v City of New York, 46 NY2d 544, 550-551 [1979]). Notwithstanding plaintiff's own apparent confusion at points during the history of this litigation, we read paragraph 1.3 as avoiding a merger of the contract representations into the deed (see Arnold v Wilkins, 61 AD3d 1236, 1236-1237 [2009]), not as a shortening of the six-year statute of limitations that governs a contract claim (see CPLR 201, 213 [2]). There is simply no express language in paragraph 1.3 limiting plaintiff's time to commence an action. Defendants' further contention that plaintiff's claim is barred under the doctrine of caveat emptor is unavailing, for the duty to disclose arises out of the contract, not the underlying transaction.