Category: Appellate Division

Videos and Experts

Torres v Hickman, 2018 NY Slip Op 04372 [2d Dept 2018]

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the proffered surveillance video excerpt. "Testimony from [a] videographer that he [or she] took the video, that it correctly reflects what he [or she] saw, and that it has not been altered or edited is normally sufficient to authenticate a videotape" (Zegarelli v Hughes, 3 NY3d 64, 69). Where the videographer is not called as a witness, the video can still be authenticated with testimony that the video "truly and accurately represents what was before the camera" (People v Byrnes, 33 NY2d 343, 349; see Zegarelli v Hughes, 3 NY3d at 69). Furthermore, "[e]vidence establishing the chain of custody of the videotape may additionally buttress its authenticity and integrity, and even allow for acceptable inferences of reasonable accuracy and freedom from tampering" (People v Patterson, 93 NY2d 80, 84; see Read v Ellenville Natl. Bank, 20 AD3d 408, 409). Here, given the inability of the witness to testify regarding the editing of the master recording and the accuracy of the video excerpt, and his lack of personal knowledge as to the creation of the proffered disc and how it came into the possession of the plaintiff's attorneys, we agree with the court's determination that the plaintiff failed to properly authenticate the video excerpt (see Read v Ellenville Natl. Bank, 20 AD3d at 409-410).

Additionally, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon from testifying that the accident imparted "tremendous energy" to the plaintiff's vehicle, since the witness was not a biomechanical engineer, and since he failed to quantify the amount of energy involved (see Plate v Palisade Film Delivery Corp., 39 AD3d 835, 837).

The plaintiff's contention that she was entitled to a missing witness charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPLR 4110-b).

Abandoned: 22 NYCRR 202.48

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Atedgi, 2018 NY Slip Op 04315 [2d Dept 2018]

In April 2013, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint and for an order of reference. The appellants opposed the motion. By decision dated July 1, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the motion and directed the plaintiff to "settle order." The decision was filed with the Queens County Clerk on July 9, 2013. Atedgi subsequently sought to have the plaintiff's motion deemed abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(b) on the ground that the plaintiff failed to submit its proposed order for signature within 60 days after the July 1, 2013, decision was filed, as required by 22 NYCRR 202.48(a). The court rejected Atedgi's request. Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted its proposed order, and the court signed it on September 15, 2015. This appeal is from so much of the order dated September 15, 2015, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants and for an order of reference.

***

Contrary to the appellants' contention, under the circumstances of this case the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to deem the plaintiff's motion abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 (see Curanovic v Cordone, 134 AD3d 978, 979-980; Russo v City of New York, 206 AD2d 355).

Translator’s affidavit: CPLR 2101(b)

Gonzalez v Abreu, 2018 NY Slip Op 04309 [2d Dept 2018]

To establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, a movant for summary judgment must come forward with evidentiary proof, in admissible form, demonstrating the absence of any triable issues of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). The failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). Here, the defendant testified at her deposition through a Spanish language interpreter. However, the errata sheets annexed to the transcript of the defendant's deposition testimony and the defendant's affidavit, which were both written in English, were not accompanied by a translator's affidavit executed in compliance with CPLR 2101(b). Therefore, those evidentiary submissions were facially defective and inadmissible (see Al-Mamar v Terrones, 146 AD3d 737, 739; Saavedra v 64 Annfield Ct. Corp., 137 AD3d 771, 772; Tepeu v Nabrizny, 129 AD3d 935, 937; Reyes v Arco Wentworth Mgt. Corp., 83 AD3d 47, 54). While the defendant submitted a translator's affidavit with her reply papers, that affidavit was unnotarized, and thus was not in admissible form (see Al-Mamar v Terrones, 146 AD3d 737, 739). 

 

Bold is mine.

Preliminary injunction converted to summary judgment

Carroll v Dicker, 2018 NY Slip Op 04305 [2d Dept. 2018]

A motion for a preliminary injunction "opens the record and gives the court authority to pass upon the sufficiency of the underlying pleading" (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 272). "However, the inquiry is limited to whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, and the court's power does not extend to an evaluation of conflicting evidence" (Livas v Mitzner, 303 AD2d 381, 382; see Alexandre v Duvivier, 96 AD3d 788, 789; Masjid Usman, Inc. v Beech 140, LLC, 68 AD3d 942, 942; Ugiri Progressive Community, Inc. v Ukwuozo, 57 AD3d 656, 656-657; Cellular Tel. Co. v Village of Tarrytown, 210 AD2d 196, 197). "Accordingly, the motion court may not, on its own initiative, convert a motion for a preliminary injunction into one for summary judgment without giving adequate notice to the parties and affording them an opportunity to lay bare their proof" (Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles v Mostrando, 94 AD3d 1050, 1052; see Hoeffner v John F. Frank, Inc., 302 AD2d 428, 430).

Here, the plaintiffs correctly contend that the Supreme Court, in effect, improperly converted their motion for a preliminary injunction into one for summary judgment without notifying the parties of its intent to do so (see Grand Aerie of Fraternal Order of Eagles v Mostrando, 94 AD3d at 1052). Consequently, the court's determination "was procedurally premature, and it erred in adjudicating the rights of the parties with regard to issues beyond those related to the requested preliminary injunction" (Alexandre v Duvivier, 96 AD3d at 789-790).

Summary judgment

Poon v Nisanov, 2018 NY Slip Op 04365 [2d Dept 2018]

With certain limitations not applicable here, "[a]ny party may move for summary judgment in any action" (CPLR 3212[a]). "A motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions" (CPLR 3212[b]). The moving party's submissions must show "that there is no defense to the cause of action or that the cause of action or defense has no merit" (id.). A motion for summary judgment "shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party" (id.; see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324).

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment on a cause of action asserted in a complaint generally has the burden of establishing, prima facie, "all of the essential elements of the cause of action" (Nunez v Chase Manhattan Bank, 155 AD3d 641, 643; see Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 23). By contrast, a defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing one of the plaintiff's causes of action may generally sustain his or her prima facie burden "by negating a single essential element" of that cause of action (Nunez v Chase Manhattan Bank, 155 AD3d at 643). To defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party need only rebut the prima facie showing made by the moving party so as to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324; Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d at 23-24).

Beard v Chase, 2018 NY Slip Op 04636 [1st Dept 2018] 

Plaintiffs were not required, as movants, to disprove any possible defenses defendants might assert in opposition to their motion, such as partial performance (see C.H. Sanders Constr. Co. v Bankers Tr. Co., 123 AD2d 251, 252 [1st Dept 1986]).

There was a dissent.

Judicial Estoppel

Bihn v Connelly, 2018 NY Slip Op 03956 [2d Dept. 2018]

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party may not take a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position he or she took in a prior proceeding, simply because his or her interests have changed (see Festinger v Edrich, 32 AD3d 412, 413; McCaffrey v Schaefer, 251 AD2d 300, 301; Ford Motor Credit Co. v Colonial Funding Corp., 215 AD2d 435, 436). The doctrine applies only where the party secured a judgment in his or her favor in the prior proceeding (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Allston, 300 AD2d 669, 670; Tilles Inv. Co. v Town of Oyster Bay, 207 AD2d 393, 394). This doctrine "rests upon the principle that a litigant should not be permitted . . . to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise'" (Ford Motor Credit Co. v Colonial Funding Corp., 215 AD2d at 436, quoting Environmental Concern v Larchwood Constr. Corp., 101 AD2d 591, 593). "The doctrine is invoked to estop parties from adopting such contrary positions because the judicial system cannot tolerate this playing fast and loose with the courts" (Ford Motor Credit Co. v Colonial Funding Corp., 215 AD2d at 436 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Preliminary injunction

Chana v Machon Chana Women's Inst., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03961 [2d Dept. 2018]

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant's favor (see CPLR 6301; XXXX, L.P. v 363 Prospect Place, LLC, 153 AD3d 588, 591). A court evaluating a motion for a preliminary injunction must be mindful that the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo and not to determine the ultimate rights of the parties (see Masjid Usman, Inc. v Beech 140, LLC, 68 AD3d 942, 942; Ying Fung Moy v Hohi Umeki, 10 AD3d 604, 605; see also S.P.Q.R. Co., Inc. v United Rockland Stairs, Inc., 57 AD3d 642, 642).

Emphasis is mine.

 

SOL on conversation and unjust enrichment

L.G.B. Dev., Inc. v Shammas, 2018 NY Slip Op 03967 [2d. Dept. 2018]

These causes of action sought damages for conversion and unjust enrichment and were barred by the three-year limitations period provided in CPLR 214(3) (see Stewart v GDC Tower at Greystone, 138 AD3d 729; Ingrami v Rovner, 45 AD3d 806).

Ingrami v Rovner, 45 AD3d 806 [2d Dept. 2007]

The statute of limitations on an unjust enrichment claim begins to run upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to the duty of restitution (id.). 

 

SOL for DJ

Village of Islandia v County of Suffolk, 2018 NY Slip Op 04025 [2d Dept. 2018]

An action for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by law must be commenced within six years (see CPLR 213[1]).

While no period of limitation is specifically prescribed for a declaratory judgment action, the six-year catch-all limitation period of CPLR 213(1) does not necessarily apply to all such actions. Rather, in order to determine the statute of limitations applicable to an action for a declaratory judgment, a court must examine the substance of the action. Where it is determined that [*2]the parties' dispute can be, or could have been, resolved in an action or proceeding for which a specific limitation period is statutorily required, that limitation period governs (see Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193, 202; Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224, 229; Matter of Dandomar Co., LLC v Town of Pleasant Val. Town Bd., 86 AD3d 83, 90).