Appellate Division

Application denied

Matter of William Jamal W. Jr. v Marjorie C., 2011 NY Slip Op 07926 (1st Dept., 2011)

No appeal lies from an order entered on default (see CPLR 5511; Matter of Jessenia Shanelle R. [Wanda Y.A.], 68 AD3d 558 [2009]). However, the denial of respondent's counsel's request to adjourn the inquest and dispositional hearing is appealable because that request was "the subject of contest below" (see James v Powell, 19 NY2d 249, 256 n 3 [1967]). We find that the court properly declined to grant the adjournment, having warned respondent on the preceding court date that it would proceed to inquest if she failed to appear (see Matter of Cain Keel L. [Derzerina L.], 78 AD3d 541 [2010], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 818 [2011]).

A duty to read

Vulcan Power Co. v Munson, 2011 NY Slip Op 07917 (1st Dept., 2011)

Defendants-appellants and defendant Munson, their representative, signed the stockholders agreement without reading it. Defendants-appellants, in fact, never requested a copy of the agreement, depending instead on the representations of Munson, who, in turn, depended upon the representations of people whose interests were at odds with his and who he believed to be untrustworthy. As a result, defendants are bound by the terms of the stockholders agreement (see Sorenson v Bridge Capital Corp., 52 AD3d 265, 266 [2008], lv dismissed 12 NY3d 748 [2009]; see also Pimpinello v Swift & Co., 253 NY 159, 162-163 [1930]). Defendants' argument that the holding in Sorenson does not apply to signers of loose signature pages is without merit. A signer's duty to read and understand that which it signed is not "diminished merely because [the signer] was provided with only a signature page" (Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v Falor, 64 AD3d 430, 430 [2009]; see also Friedman v Fife, 262 AD2d 167, 168 [1999]).

Defendants' failure to read the stockholders agreement also precludes its fraud in the execution defense (see First Natl. Bank of Odessa v Fazzari, 10 NY2d 394, 397-398 [1961] [finding a non-English speaker negligent for not asking his wife to read a document of obvious legal import, especially where he had done so in the past]; see also Sorenson, 52 AD3d at 266 ["negligent failure to read [an] agreement [precludes the assertion of] justifiable reliance, an essential element of fraud in the execution"]).

Kolmar Ams., Inc. v Bioversal Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 07916 (1st Dept., 2011)

Plaintiff's attempt to insert ambiguity into the applicable tax clause contained in the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) of the agreement between the parties which required plaintiff to pay defendant all taxes "paid or incurred by [defendant] directly or indirectly with respect to the product sold," is unpersuasive. "A written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms" (Excel Graphics Tech. v CFG/AGSCB, 1 AD3d 65, 69 [2003], lv dismissed 2 NY3d 794 [2004]). Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the language employed in the contract should not be modified by, or read together with, the "Title and Risk of Loss" provision. Nor should the term "indirectly" be read narrowly as such a reading would render the counterpart term covering taxes paid "directly," meaningless, and run afoul of the "cardinal rule of construction that a court adopt an interpretation that renders no portion of the contract meaningless" (Diamond Castle Partners v IAC/Interactive Corp., 82 AD3d 421, 422 [2011]).

Article 2 of the UCC does not authorize the introduction of parole evidence to vary the plain meaning of the GTC tax clause. Extrinsic evidence does not merely "explain" or "supplement" a contractual term within the meaning of UCC 2-202 when the purported explanation or supplement actually contradicts the unambiguous contractual terms (see UCC 2-202; Intershoe, Inc. v Bankers Trust Co., 77 NY2d 517, 523 [1991]).

The motion court's grant of partial summary judgment while directing that an inquest be held after discovery is completed was a provident exercise of its "wide discretion" (see Robert Stigwood Org. v Devon Co., 44 NY2d 922, 923-24 [1978]). Pursuant to the motion court's order, at the inquest, defendant will bear the burden of proving its damages, i.e., the amount it paid or incurred, directly or indirectly, with respect to Florida fuel taxes in connection with the subject contract.

Punitive

Felton v Tourtoulis, 2011 NY Slip Op 06472 (2nd Dept., 2011)

The Supreme Court improperly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the plaintiff's demand for punitive damages insofar as asserted against the defendant driver. "Punitive damages are available to vindicate a public right only where the actions of the alleged tortfeasor constitute either gross recklessness or intentional, wanton, or malicious conduct aimed at the public generally, or were activated by evil or reprehensible motives" (Boykin v Mora, 274 AD2d 441, 442). At this stage of the litigation, it is premature to conclude that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to support a claim that the defendant driver acted so recklessly or wantonly as to warrant an award of punitive damages (see Wilner v Allstate Ins. Co., 71 AD3d 155, 167). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the plaintiff's demand for punitive damages insofar as asserted against the defendant driver.

Fix that appeal with CPLR § 5520 and othe good stuff

CPLR § 5520 Omissions; appeal by improper method

CPLR § 5512 Appealable Paper; entry of order made out of court

Republic Mtge. Ins. Co. v Countrywide Fin. Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 06292 (1st Dept., 2011)

Initially, to reach the merits of plaintiffs' appeal, we exercise our discretionary authority, pursuant to CPLR 5520(c), to deem the inaccurate notice of appeal as valid to correct the procedural problem created here by plaintiffs' appeal from the order and not the judgment (Robertson v Greenstein, 308 AD2d 381 [2003], lv dismissed 2 NY3d 759 [2004]).

Clemons v Schindler El. Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 06205 (1st Dept., 2011)

Purported appeals from decisions, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J. and Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), filed January 12, 2010, which, respectively, denied a motion to strike this matter from the trial calendar, and denied an application to adjourn the proceedings and directed dismissal of the complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute, unanimously dismissed, with costs, as taken from nonappealable papers.

In December 2008, trial of this matter was adjourned to January 7, 2009 to accommodate the vacation plans of plaintiff's trial counsel. Several days later, plaintiff brought an order to show cause to remove the case from the trial calendar in order to permit amendment of her expert's report to assert an additional basis of liability. The motion was heard by Supreme Court (Judith J. Gische, J.) and denied in an order entered January 14, 2009. The unsigned transcript of the proceedings, reciting that it "constitutes the decision and order of the Court," was not filed until January 12, 2010.

After appearing before Justice Gische, the parties proceeded to the trial part, where plaintiff sought adjournment on the ground that trial counsel was on trial in another matter. After JHO Gammerman indicated his acquiescence to the extent of adjourning trial for a few days, plaintiff's counsel requested that the court go off the record. When the proceedings resumed, JHO Gammerman ruled that it was dismissing the matter for failure to prosecute, stating that "it is a dismissal with prejudice, and the Clerk is directed to enter appropriate judgment." The transcript of these proceedings, likewise unsigned, was also not entered until January 12, 2010.

The ruling sought to be reviewed on this appeal is indeterminate. The notice of appeal dated January 13, 2010 recites that the appeal is taken "from the order of [Supreme] Court duly entered in the office of the Clerk on January 12, 2010." While the notice fails to specify the individual judge or judicial hearing officer, plaintiff's pre-argument statement (McKinney's NY Rules of Court [22 NYCRR] § 600.17[a]) identifies the ruling appealed from as that of Justice Gische. Finally, plaintiff's brief designates the question to be decided as whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in denying the motion to mark the matter off the trial calendar, leading to an order dismissing the case, and concludes that "the orders [sic] appealed from should be reversed."

Although the transcript of proceedings before JHO Gammerman indicates that, upon signing, it may be presented to the Clerk for entry of judgment, it is not signed and no subsequent proceedings are reflected in the record. Particularly, there is no indication that judgment was ever entered.

Neither of the decisions filed on January 12, 2010 constitutes an appealable paper (CPLR 5512[a]), and this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (Matter of Grosso v Slade, 179 AD2d 585, 586 [1992]). The ruling by Justice Gische was reduced to a short-form order duly entered on January 14, 2009 (CPLR 2219[a]) but not appealed from. The JHO's decision was never presented for signature by a Supreme Court Justice, and there is no record of any judgment having been entered thereon from which an appeal could be taken.

Singh v Lincoln Mgt., LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 06484 (2nd Dept., 2011)

The appeal by the plaintiff from the order must be dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c], [e]). The appeal by the defendants third-party plaintiffs from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with entry of the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal by the defendants third-party plaintiffs from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

However, the appeal by the defendants third-party plaintiffs from the judgment must be dismissed, as they are not aggrieved thereby. They received all the relief sought by them on their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the third-party defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint was denied as academic, and the third-party complaint has not been dismissed by the Supreme Court (see CPLR 5511). That the order brought up for review on the appeal from the judgment may contain language or reasoning which the defendants third-party plaintiffs deem adverse to their interests does not furnish them with a basis for taking an appeal (see Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co., 68 NY2d 465, 472-473).

Deller v Mercy Med. Ctr., 2011 NY Slip Op 06365 (2nd Dept., 2011)

As a general rule, we do not consider an issue on a subsequent appeal which was raised or could have been raised in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to do so (see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 NY2d 750; Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350). The plaintiff appealed from a judgment entered January 12, 2009, which upon, inter alia, an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 4, 2005, denying the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404. That appeal was dismissed by decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 4, 2010, for failure to perfect in accordance with the rules of this Court, and that dismissal constituted an adjudication on the merits with respect to all issues which could have been reviewed on that appeal (see Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d at 355). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our discretion to determine the merits of the instant appeal from the amended judgment, which raises the same issues as could have been raised on the prior appeal (see Bray v Cox, 38 NY2d 350; Graziano v Graziano, 66 AD3d 835; Blue Chip Mtge. Corp. v Stumpf, 50 AD3d 936; Matter of Talt v Murphy, 35 AD3d 486; Hepner v New York City Tr. Auth., 27 AD3d 418).

Poundage CPLR § 8012

CPLR § 8012 Mileage fees, poundage fees, additional compensation, and limitation on compensation of sheriffs.

Cabrera v Hirth, 2011 NY Slip Op 06394 (1st Dept., 2011)

A sheriff is entitled to poundage, which is a percentage commission awarded for the collection of money pursuant to a levy or execution of attachment, computed on the monies collected (CPLR 8012[b][1]; see Kurtzman v Bergstol, 62 AD3d757, 757 [2009])^[FN1].

Where the collection process has been commenced but has not been completed, a sheriff may still be entitled to a poundage fee under three circumstances: (1) where "a settlement is made after a levy by virtue of an execution" (CPLR 8012[b][2]); (2) where the "execution is vacated or set aside" (CPLR 8012[b][2]); (3) where there has been an affirmative interference with the collection process, thus preventing a sheriff from actually collecting the assets (Solow Mgt. Corp. v Tanger, 10 NY3d 326, 330-331 [2008]; see also Thornton v Montefiore Hosp., 117 AD2d 552, 553 [1986]).

In this action, where enforcement of the underlying judgment was settled with payment by the debtor defendants' insurance carriers directly to the creditor plaintiff after the Marshal had levied certain accounts, the Marshal is entitled to poundage (see Kurtzman at 758).

Traditionally, the amount of poundage is based on the value of the property levied upon (see Considine v Pichler, 72 AD2d 103, 104 [1979], lv denied 49 NY2d 701 [1980]). However, in this case, the poundage fee cannot be determined by reference to the value of the property levied. The settlement cut off the Marshal's ability to prove the value of the accounts levied upon. The motion court therefore properly exercised its discretion in using the settlement amount as a substitute for the unknown actual value of the levied accounts.^[FN2]

We turn now to the question of which party is responsible for payment of the poundage fee. In a situation such as this, where a settlement is made after a levy, CPLR 8012(b) is silent on this question. The cases which have addressed this issue turn on which of the three circumstances noted above are present in each particular case (see generally Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 8012.05, et seq. [2d ed]).

In the circumstance where a settlement is made after a levy and the order of attachment is vacated (CPLR 8012[b][3]), the courts have interpreted this to cover the situations where "the attachment was invalid at the outset or the action was dismissed in defendant's favor." In those cases, the party responsible for payment of the poundage is usually the plaintiff (see Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C8012:1). Where, as here, the order of attachment is "otherwise discharged" (CPLR 8012 [b][3]), "the party liable for poundage is the one who obtains the discharge – usually the defendant." (id.; see Liquifin Aktiengesellschaft v Brennan, 446 F Supp 914, 922 [SD NY 1978]).

There is a judicially created exception to this latter rule of thumb in cases where a party affirmatively interferes with collection of the money (see Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 8012.04 [2d ed]). In those situations, the party who actively interferes with the collection process may be held responsible for payment of poundage fees.

***

Initially, the fact that plaintiff agreed to take payment directly from the debtor "is an affirmative act interfering with collection by the [Marshal]" (Greenfield v Tripp, 23 Misc 2d 1088, 1089 [1960]). It is uncontroverted that the matter was settled when the defendants' insurers paid the full amount of the judgment to plaintiff's counsel after the Marshal had levied and collected funds from defendants' bank accounts. There is no question that plaintiff's counsel, rather than adhering to the terms of the judgment and waiting the stated 30 days for defendants' insurance carriers to post undertakings, called upon the Marshal's assistance to levy upon defendants' bank accounts or other assets within four days of the entry of the judgment and some five months prior to serving the judgment with notice of entry on defendants. It has long been customary that where a sheriff levies against defendant's property and the matter is thereafter settled, the judgment creditor is liable to the sheriff for the payment of poundage fees as the party who invoked the Sheriff's services (see County of Westchester v Riechers, 6 Misc 3d 584 [2004]; Matter of Associated Food Stores v Farmer's Bazaar of Long Is., 126 Misc 2d 541, 542 [1984]; Matter of Intl. Distrib. Export Co., Inc., 219 F Supp 412 [SD NY 1963]; Seymour Mfg. Co. v Tarnopol, 20 Misc 2d 210 [1959]; Zimmerman v Engel, 114 NYS2d 293 [1952]; Flack v State of New York, 95 N.Y. 461, 466 [1884]; Campbell v Cothran, 56 NY 279 [1874]; Adams v Hopkins, 5 Johns 252 [Sup Ct, NY County 1810]). That is especially appropriate here as plaintiff, as early as November 11, 2004, knew that the entire amount of the judgment was insured, and that defendants' carriers had posted undertakings for the full amount of the judgment. Plaintiff had the opportunity on November 19 to terminate the Marshal's efforts to collect this judgment by declining to sign the 60 day extension as requested by the Marshal. Plaintiff ultimately settled directly with the defendants' insurance carriers rather than follow the court-ordered payment schedule as provided for in the judgment. The record does not show any attempt to advise the Marshal that the carriers posted security or that plaintiff's counsel made his own demand upon those carriers for payment.

As a result, the motion court properly determined that plaintiff and counsel "thwarted" the efforts of the Marshal to collect on this judgment, thus rendering them responsible for payment of the Marshal's poundage fee.

Expertly Fryed and a little precluded

Matter of Bausch & Lomb Contact Lens Solution Prod. Liab. Litig., 2011 NY Slip Op 06460 (1st Dept., 2011)

Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing at the Frye hearing (Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 [1923]) that their experts' opinions that defendant's soft contact lens solution ReNu with MoistureLoc (Renu ML) was causally related to a rise in non-Fusarium corneal infections were generally accepted by the relevant medical or scientific community (see Pauling v Orentreich Med. Group., 14 AD3d 357 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 710 [2005]; Lara v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 305 AD2d 106 [2003]; see also Marso v Novak, 42 AD3d 377 [2007], lv denied 12 NY3d 704 [2009]). They submitted no "controlled studies, clinical data, medical literature, peer review or supporting proof" of their theory (Saulpaugh v Krafte, 5 AD3d 934, 936 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 610 [2004]; Lara, 305 AD2d at 106).

Plaintiffs' experts contended that testing showed a reduced biocidal efficacy of ReNu ML under certain conditions. The experts then extrapolated from those results the conclusion that ReNu ML increased the risk of non-Fusarium infections. However, one of the experts stated in a published article that "contamination is not consistently correlated with a higher rate of microbial keratitis" (Levey and Cohen, Methods of Disinfecting Contact Lenses to Avoid Corneal Disorders, Survey of Ophthalmology, Vol. 41, No. 3, at 296 [1996]). In addition, from a certain study in which a film was found to protect Fusarium, plaintiffs' experts concluded that the film similarly would protect other microorganisms. However, plaintiffs' microbiologist conceded that different types of microorganisms have different needs and respond differently to different conditions.

Moreover, despite four studies conducted on keratitis infections during the relevant period, plaintiffs introduced no epidemiological evidence of a rise in non-Fusarium infections. The court properly excluded plaintiffs' epidemiologist from explaining this lack of an epidemiological signal, because the testimony had not been previously disclosed by plaintiffs and would have surprised defendant. Additionally, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate good cause for their failure to disclose the testimony (see CPLR 3101[d]; LaFurge v Cohen, 61 AD3d 426 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 701 [2009]; Peguero v 601 Realty Corp., 58 AD3d 556, 564 [2009]).

The court properly quashed plaintiffs' subpoena of defendant's expert and former chief medical officer, because the expert had been deposed on three occasions, and plaintiffs failed to articulate any legitimate need for his live testimony (see Pena v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 AD3d 309 [2008]).

Nonnon v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 06463 (1st Dept., 2011)

The Frye test is not concerned with the reliability of a particular expert's conclusions, but rather, with "whether the expert['s] deductions are based on principles that are sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance as reliable" (Nonnon I, 32 AD3d at 103 [internal quotation marks omitted]). General acceptance does not necessarily mean that a majority of the scientists involved subscribe to the conclusion, but that those espousing the theory or opinion have followed generally accepted scientific principles and methodology in reaching their conclusions.

***

Thus, so long as plaintiffs' experts have provided a "scientific expression" of plaintiff's exposure levels, they will have laid an adequate foundation for their opinions on specific causation (Jackson, 43 AD3d at 602 [internal quotation marks omitted]). For example, in Jackson, the court found that the plaintiffs' expert had laid a sufficient foundation for his opinion on causation where, inter alia, the expert was directly involved in the investigation of the potential health consequences of the underlying incident; co-authored a report based on the investigation and research that had been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, comparing the facts of the incident to those recorded in other studies; and opined that the manner in which DEAE had been fed into the steam system prior to the leak caused concentrated levels of the toxin to be released and that plaintiffs' symptoms were caused by DEAE exposure in a building.

Salman v Rosario, 2011 NY Slip Op 06323 (1st Dept., 2011)

Most important, plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Ehrlich, who performed arthroscopic surgery on plaintiff's knee only four months after the accident, opined that "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the motor vehicle accident of 11/28/05 is the proximate cause of her condition, and not from a pre-existing or long standing degenerative process." Plaintiff's surgeon based this conclusion on his observations of plaintiff's knee during surgery (documented in the operative report plaintiff submitted on the original motion) and because plaintiff's MRI films (plaintiff submitted the MRI report on the original motion) did not depict the existence of osteophytes, show evidence of spondylosis or show other symptoms of degenerative processes. Thus, plaintiff's surgeon countered defendant's orthopedist's observation that plaintiff's injuries had no traumatic basis. Plaintiff's surgeon also documented range-of-motion limitations in the knee. Dr. Mian, who also conducted an orthopedic examination in 2008 and found deficits in plaintiff's range of motion, opined that the right knee tear was causally related to the accident. Thus, the evidence more than amply raised an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had sustained a "serious injury" of a permanent nature to the right knee within the meaning of Insurance Law Section 5102(d).

Plaintiff's objective evidence of injury, four months post-accident, was sufficiently contemporaneous to establish that plaintiff had suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the statute. Dr. Ehrlich based his conclusions in large part on his actual observations of plaintiff's knee during the surgery he performed. This conclusion is significant because the doctor was able to see exactly what the injuries were. Moreover, in her affidavit, plaintiff stated that, prior to surgery, she had physical therapy five times a week for three months. It is not unreasonable to try to resolve an injury with physical therapy before resorting to surgery. The circumstances, i.e., plaintiff's initial medical exam that was close in time to the accident, her intensive physical therapy, her young age and eventual surgery, make the four months between the accident and plaintiff's objective medical evidence sufficiently contemporanous to withstand a motion for summary judgment (see Gonzalez v Vasquez, 301 AD2d 438 [2003] [examining physician's affirmation correlating motorist's neck and back pain two years after rear-end collision to quantified range of motion limitations found on physical examination and bulging and herniated discs described in MRI reports, and opining that motorist's symptoms were permanent, raised genuine issue of material fact as to whether motorist suffered serious injury]; see also Rosario v Universal Truck & Trailer Serv., 7 AD3d 306, 309 [2004]).

However, defendants did establish, prima facie, that plaintiff did not suffer a 90/180-day injury, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, given her testimony that she was out of work for only three days (see Pou v E & S Wholesale Meats, Inc., 68 AD3d 446, 447 [2009]).

All concur except Román, J. who dissents in a memorandum as follows:

ROMÁN, J. (dissenting)

To the extent that the majority concludes that renewal of the motion court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Kanate was warranted, and that upon renewal Garcia's evidence precluded summary judgment, I dissent. Here, renewal would only have been warranted in the interest of justice, and to the extent that Garcia's evidentiary submission on renewal failed to establish any injury contemporaneous with her accident, renewal should have been denied.

To the extent that Garcia submitted medical evidence failing to establish treatment earlier than January 25, 2006, two months after this accident, Garcia failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury because she failed to submit competent and admissible medical evidence of injury contemporaneous with her accident (see Ortega v Maldonado, 38 AD3d 388, 388 [2007]; Toulson v Young Han Pae, 13 AD3d 317, 319 [2004]; Alicea v Troy Trans, Inc., 60 AD3d 521, 522 [2009]; Migliaccio v Miruku, 56 AD3d 393, 394 [2008]). Accordingly, the motion court properly granted Kanate's initial motion for summary judgment with respect to all categories of injury under Insurance Law § 5102.

On her motion to renew, seeking to remedy shortcomings in her prior submission, Garcia tendered, inter alia, medical records, not previously submitted, purportedly evincing medical treatment contemporaneous with her accident. Specifically and to the extent relevant here, on renewal Garcia submitted records evincing a medical examination occurring a month after her accident. Nothing submitted competently evinced medical treatment at anytime prior thereto. A motion to renew "must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made, but were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew, and, therefore, not made known to the court" (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568 [1979]). However, when the proponent of renewal seeks to proffer new evidence of which he/she was previously aware but did not provide to the court on a prior motion, renewal may be granted if the interest of justice so dictate (Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v City of New York, 280 AD2d 374, 376-377 [2001]; Mejia v Nanni, 307 AD2d 870, 871 [2003]). Generally, the interest of justice require renewal when the newly submitted evidence changes the outcome of the prior motion. Here, Garcia sought renewal in order to have the motion court consider evidence previously known to her. Accordingly, renewal would have only been warranted if it served the interest of justice. At best, Garcia's medical evidence of injury on renewal established medical treatment beginning no sooner than a month after her accident. A medical examination occurring a month after an accident is not contemporaneous. Given its plain and ordinary meaning, contemporaneous means "existing, happening in the same period of time" (Webster's New World Dictionary 300 [3rd college ed 2004]). Accordingly, insofar as Garcia's evidence on renewal did not evince medical treatment contemporaneous with the accident, renewal in the interest of justice should have been denied.

The majority takes the untenable position that not only is Garcia's medical examination, occurring a month after the accident, contemporaneous with her accident, but paradoxically that the report of her surgeon, who did not see plaintiff for the first time until four months after her accident, is sufficient to establish the causal link between Garcia's knee injury and her accident such that she raised an issue of fact precluding summary judgment in Kanate's favor. First, if a medical examination occurring one month after an accident is not contemporaneous, then an examination occurring four months after an accident is certainly less so (Mancini v Lali NY, Inc., 77 AD3d 797, 798 [2010] [medical findings made by plaintiff's doctor four months after his accident not sufficiently contemporaneous with the accident to establish a serious injury]); Resek v Morreale, 74 AD3d 1043, 1044-145 [2010] [medical findings made by plaintiff's doctor five months after his accident not sufficiently contemporaneous with the accident to establish a serious injury]). Moreover, even if we assume that this report was temporally contemporaneous with her accident, it was nevertheless bereft of any objective, qualitative, or quantitative evidence of injury to her knee (Blackmon v Dinstuhl, 27 AD3d 241, 242 [2006]; Thompson v Abassi, 15 AD3d 95, 98 [2005]). Second, contrary to the majority's assertion, the report of Garcia's orthopedist might have been probative as to her knee injury on the date he performed surgery, but standing alone, his observations on that date could not have been probative as to whether that injury was caused by this accident (see Pommells v Perez, 4 AD3d 101, 101-102 [2004], affd 4 NY3d 566 [2005] [medical opinion as to causation is speculative when the record is bereft of any evidence establishing contemporaneous medical treatment and the doctor proffering opinion sees plaintiff for the first time after a substantial period of time since the accident]; Vaughan v Baez, 305 AD2d 101, 101 (2003); Shinn v Catanzaro, 1 AD3d 195, 198-199 [2003]; Komar v Showers, 227 AD2d 135, 136 [1996]).

The majority relies on two cases in support of its holding, Gonzalez v Vasquez (301 AD2d 438 [2003]) and Rosario v Universal Truck & Trailer Serv., Inc. (7 AD3d 306 [2004]), neither of which bears on the issue of contemporaneous medical treatment and both of which, to the extent that they allow a doctor to establish causation upon an initial examination conducted a substantial time after an accident, are at odds with Vaughan, Shinn, Komar and Pommells.

***

Footnote 1:Although the records from Dr. Cordaro's office are unsworn, it is of no moment. The documents are properly certified as business records (see Mayblum v Schwarzbaum, 253 AD2d 380 [1998]; CPLR 4518[a]), and are referenced only to show plaintiff's complaints and the doctor's referral rather than a medical opinion about a causal relation to the accident.

Matter of New York City 5201-Asbestos Litig., 2011 NY Slip Op 06296 (1st Dept., 2011)

Colgate seeks to question Dr. Sanborn about a hobby allegedly involving asbestos that she mentioned in her consultation note on Karen Tedrick. Dr. Sanborn wrote that "[Tedrick's] father had some sort of hobby activity or other project in the family basement as the patient was growing up, which the patient's brother reports did involve having asbestos in the basement." Tedrick's brother, Richard Konopka, has already been deposed, however, and testified that this hobby referred to a chemistry set that he owned as a teenager. Because the information sought from Dr. Sanborn is available from another source, we agree with the motion court that Dr. Sanborn's deposition should not be compelled (see Ramsey v New York Univ. Hosp. Ctr., 14 AD3d 349 [2005]; CPLR 3101[a][3]; 3101[a][4]).

Lugo v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 06475 (2nd Dept., 2011)

A running theme throughout the Frye hearing was whether the experts considered the medical literature they had reviewed to be "authoritative." Although both Dr. Katz and Dr. Peyster testified that they did not consider any of the literature they had discussed to be "authoritative," Dr. Katz testified that the Volpe textbook and the articles he had addressed were the sources he would consult for the current science in the areas discussed at the hearing. Dr. Peyster testified that he did not consider any medical literature, including his own book, to be "authoritative" because that term implied that everything in the article or study was correct and was not subject to any further changes. Dr. Peyster's reluctance to apply this label to medical literature was echoed by the defendant's expert Dr. Jahre, who agreed that this term was not used frequently to describe medical literature and that doctors relied upon articles not considered to be "authoritative" to assess the state of the science.

***

In addition, we disagree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the theory of causation espoused by the plaintiffs' experts lacked an adequate foundation for admissibility. "The Frye inquiry is separate and distinct from the admissibility question applied to all evidence—whether there is a proper foundation—to determine whether the accepted methods were appropriately employed in a particular case" (Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 447; see People v Wesley, 83 NY2d at 428-429; Jackson v Nutmeg Tech., Inc., 43 AD3d 599, 601). "The focus moves from the general reliability concerns of Frye to the specific reliability of the procedures followed to generate the evidence proffered and whether they establish a foundation for the reception of the evidence at trial" (People v Wesley, 83 NY2d at 429). "The foundation . . . should not include a determination of the court that such evidence is true. That function should be left to the jury" (id. at 425).

****

The Supreme Court's conclusion that the opinion of the plaintiffs' experts lacked an adequate foundation rested largely on its findings that the evidence presented at the Frye hearing established that perinatal ischemia or hypoxia is the overwhelming cause of PVL and that the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts did not eliminate other "more likely possible causes" of Lugo's PVL. In relying upon such reasoning, the Supreme Court, in effect, rendered an assessment as to the ultimate merit of the opinion testimony of the plaintiffs' experts (see People v Wesley, 83 NY2d at 425). Clearly, numerous factual disagreements between the parties' experts were highlighted at the Frye hearing, including, but not limited to, the specific appearance of Lugo's brain MRI abnormalities and their cause. However, these factual disagreements go to the weight to be accorded to the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts by the trier of fact, and not the admissibility of such testimony (see Jackson v Nutmeg Tech., Inc., 43 AD3d at 602).

Conflict of Laws

Rose v Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 06374 (2nd Dept., 2011)

This action arises from the alleged failure of the defendants, in their capacity as insurance brokers, to provide the plaintiffs with an accurate quote for the cost of certain insurance coverage. The third, fourth, and fifth causes of action in the amended complaint, which are at issue on this appeal, allege negligence, professional malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty, respectively. The only issue disputed by the parties is whether the conduct alleged in those three causes of action is governed by Louisiana law or New York law.

The three causes of action in question sound in tort and, thus, contrary to the parties' contentions, the conflict-of-laws standard that applies in contract-based actions (see Zurich Ins. Co. v Shearson Lehman Hutton, 84 NY2d 309, 317-319) does not apply here. Since the laws alleged to be in conflict—including those regarding the availability of punitive damages, an important purpose of which is deterrence (see Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 8 NY3d 478, 489) — are of a conduct-regulating nature, the law of the place of the tort applies (see Padula v Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 NY2d 519; Cooney v Osgood Mach., 81 NY2d 66, 72; Schultz v Boy Scouts of Am., 65 NY2d 189, 198; Shaw v Carolina Coach, 82 AD3d 98, 101). In this case, the allegedly negligent quote was requested by the plaintiffs, and provided by the defendants, through e-mail communications that were sent from and received in New York. Thus, the tortious conduct alleged in the amended complaint is governed by New York law. Since the parties charted a procedural course in which the viability of the three causes of action in question depends upon whether they are governed by Louisiana law, the Supreme Court properly awarded the defendants summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.

Renewal Judgment and Bankruptcy

CPLR § 5014 Action upon judgment

CPLR § 5018 Docketing of judgment

CPLR § 5203 Priorities and liens upon real judgment

Nelson, L.P. v Jannace, 2011 NY Slip Op 06373 (2nd Dept., 2011)

In 2009 Nelson moved pursuant to CPLR 5014(1) for a renewal judgment, extending the lien on the defendants' real property for an additional 10 years. The defendants cross-moved pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 150 to direct that a discharge of record be marked upon the docket of the judgment entered June 27, 2000, as amended January 25, 2001. The Supreme Court granted the motion and denied the cross motion. The defendants appeal.

Judgment was properly entered against Woods prior to her bankruptcy filing. Contrary to the defendants' contention, the amended judgment was properly entered after the Bankruptcy Court terminated ab initio the automatic bankruptcy stay of actions against Jannace and permitted entry of the judgment. The docketing of the money judgment, by operation of law, created a lien on the defendants' real property within the county (see CPLR 5018[a]; 5203; Gihon, LLC v 501 Second St., LLC, 29 AD3d 629). Since a lien is valid for 10 years (see CPLR 5203[a]), while a money judgment is viable for 20 years (see CPLR 211[b]), CPLR 5014 permits a judgment creditor to apply for a renewal of the judgment lien for an additional 10-year period (see Gletzer v Harris, 12 NY3d 468, 473). The Supreme Court properly granted Nelson's motion pursuant to CPLR 5014(1) for a renewal judgment, despite the defendants' discharge in bankruptcy.

"[A] discharge in bankruptcy is a discharge from personal liability only and, without more, does not have any effect on a judgment lien" (Matter of Acquisitions Plus, LLC v Shapiro, 7 AD3d 957, 958; 11 USC § 524[a][1]). Judgment liens and other secured interests ordinarily survive bankruptcy (see Carman v European Am. Bank & Trust Co., 78 NY2d 1066; McArdle v McGregor, 261 AD2d 591; Bank of N.Y. v Magri, 226 AD2d 412; see also Farrey v Sanderfoot, 500 US 291, 297). Moreover, a creditor need not object to the debtor's discharge in bankruptcy in order to preserve its lien, since the discharge does not affect the lien (see Carman v European Am. Bank & Trust Co., 78 NY2d 1066; McArdle v McGregor, 261 AD2d 591).

When the defendants received discharges in bankruptcy, their personal liability to the plaintiff on the judgment was discharged (see 11 USC § 524[a][1]). However, the defendants did not meet their burden of establishing that the liens on their real property were invalidated or surrendered in the bankruptcy proceedings or set aside in an action brought by the receiver or trustee. Accordingly, they were entitled only to a qualified discharge (see Debtor and Creditor Law § 150[4][b]; Carman v European Am. Bank & Trust Co., 78 NY2d 1066; Bank of N.Y. v Magri, 226 AD2d 412; Matter of Leonard v Brescia Lbr. Corp., 174 AD2d 621). "A qualified' discharge, as distinguished from an unqualified discharge, serves as notice to third parties that, notwithstanding the debtor-owner's discharge in bankruptcy, the property may, nonetheless, still be burdened by liens" (Carman v European Am. Bank & Trust Co., 78 NY2d at 1067).

A very invasive Defense IME

D'Adamo v Saint Dominic's Home, 2011 NY Slip Op 06469 (2nd Dept., 2011)

The plaintiff then moved to vacate the defendant's notice of physical examination pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.17(a) or, in the alternative, for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103(6).

In opposition, the defendant argued that it was entitled to a physical examination of Herrera since his physical condition had been placed into controversy. Moreover, it contended that it would be placed at a disadvantage in defending itself in this action if it was deprived of the opportunity to conduct such an examination by a doctor of its choosing since the plaintiff alleged that Herrera would require a colostomy bag for the rest of his life, establishing the need for an examination by Dr. Gingold. In addition, it claimed that an examination was necessary given the plaintiff's allegations of surgical scarring and edema to all of Herrera's extremities as a result of the defendant's alleged negligence.

In her attorney's reply affirmation, the plaintiff agreed to produce Herrera for the physical examination in light of the defendant's willingness to pay all of the costs associated with transporting Herrera to and from Dr. Gingold's office, and any required supervision of Herrera for the physical examination. However, the plaintiff indicated that she would object to any invasive procedures such as a colonoscopy, any radiological studies, or the removal of Herrera's colostomy bag during Dr. Gingold's examination.

In an order dated November 16, 2010, the Supreme Court requested a sworn statement from Dr. Gingold detailing the procedures to be performed during the examination. The Supreme Court provided that the plaintiff would be allowed to respond.

Dr. Gingold submitted an affidavit in response to the Supreme Court's order, explaining that he intended to perform a rigid sigmoidoscopy. He contended that the procedure would "take a few minutes and [wa]s not dangerous or painful" and there had been no complications from "any straightforward sigmoidoscopies [he] ha[d] performed." He did not anticipate the use of anesthesia. In the event that Herrera's rectum had to be stretched digitally, Dr. Gingold stated that he would apply topical anesthesia. Dr. Gingold opined that, since Herrera had a limited amount of sigmoid and rectum remaining, it was unlikely that Herrera would feel any cramps following the procedure.

Dr. Gingold also intended to examine Herrera's abdomen and the colostomy bag to determine if any issues were present which would prevent reversal of the colostomy or resolution of the irritation in the vicinity of the colostomy as testified to by D'Adamo during her deposition.

In response, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation from Dr. Jeffrey Freed, who explained that a rigid sigmoidoscopy involves placing a rigid instrument in a person's rectum up to the sigmoid colon. He contended that "[a]s with any surgical procedure, there are risks and such a procedure can not be classified as being not dangerous,' as indicated by [Dr. Gingold]." He also stated that there was a risk of perforation to the remaining colon and rectum if there was any movement by Herrera, which was likely given Herrera's inability to comprehend or follow commands to remain still.

Dr. Gingold then submitted a supplemental affidavit in which he acknowledged that there was a chance Herrera would move during the procedure. Given that possibility, Dr. Gingold would first examine Herrera digitally and would only perform the rigid sigmoidoscopy, with a smaller pediatric sigmoidoscope and without sedation, if Herrera tolerated the digital examination. If Herrera did not tolerate the digital examination, Dr. Gingold could sedate Herrera intravenously during the procedure for a total of approximately two minutes.

Upon receiving the additional submissions, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the plaintiff's motion and directed Herrera to undergo the physical examination as noticed by the defendant and as outlined in the affidavits of Dr. Gingold. The plaintiff appeals.

With respect to the denial of that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for a protective order, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion. While CPLR 3101(a) provides that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution . . . of an action," "the principle of full disclosure' does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure" (JFK Family Ltd. Partnership v Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P., 83 AD3d 899, 900; see Buxbaum v Castro, 82 AD3d 925, 925; Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 78 AD3d 802; Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 AD3d 1139; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531).

When a particular discovery demand is inappropriate, the court may "make a protective order" with respect to that demand (CPLR 3103[a]). "Such order shall be designed to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person" (id.).

Even though a defendant is entitled to thoroughly examine a plaintiff who puts his or her physical and/or mental condition in issue (see Louis v Cohen, 221 AD2d 509; Healy v Deepdale Gen. Hosp., 145 AD2d 413), a plaintiff may not be compelled to undergo objective testing procedures when it is established that the tests are invasive, painful and harmful to the person's health (see Rosario v BNS Bldgs., LLC, 67 AD3d 984; Santero v Kotwal, 4 AD3d 464, 465; Bobka v Mann, 308 AD2d 497, 498; Marino v Pena, 211 AD2d 668, 668-669; Lapera v Shafron, 159 AD2d 614).

Here, the plaintiff met her initial burden of showing that the procedures which Dr. Gingold intended to perform on Herrera were potentially harmful and clearly invasive (see Rosario v BNS Bldgs., LLC, 67 AD3d 984; Santero v Kotwal, 4 AD3d at 465; Bobka v Mann, 308 AD2d at 498; Marino v Pena, 211 AD2d at 668-669; Lefkowitz v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 94 AD2d 18, 21). In response, the defendant failed to establish that the intended procedures would not be harmful to Herrera (see Marino v Pena, 211 AD2d 668; Lefkowitz v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 94 AD2d 18). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which sought a protective order prohibiting the defendant's expert, Dr. Gingold, from performing invasive procedures, including, but not limited to, a rigid sigmoidoscopy, on Herrera during the defense physical examination.

In her reply affirmation, the plaintiff agreed to produce Herrera for a physical examination by Dr. Gingold, in effect, on condition that the defendant pay all of the costs associated with the transport of Herrera to and from the defendant's designated physician, and any required supervision of Herrera for the physical examination, and upon the further condition that no invasive procedures be performed upon Herrera. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court directed the defendant to pay those costs. Accordingly, in light of our determination above, that part of the order which, in effect, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which sought an order vacating the defendant's notice seeking a physical examination of Herrera has been rendered academic and therefore the appeal therefrom must be dismissed.

Signature can be anywhere

Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 06450 (1st Dept., 2011)

Plaintiffs are small business owners who, as lessees, entered into form leases for certain business equipment with defendant Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. (NLS), as lessor. Each plaintiff signed the form lease on page 1. Paragraph 9 ("Insurance") of the form lease, on page 3 thereof, provides in pertinent part: "If Lessee does not provide evidence of insurance [on the leased equipment], Lessee is deemed to have chosen to buy [a] Loss and Destruction waiver [from NLS] at the price in effect, price which Lessor reserves the right to change from time-to-time." Plaintiffs' cause of action for breach of contract is based on NLS's charging them the aforementioned "Loss and Destruction waiver" (LDW) fee for the privilege of not purchasing insurance. Plaintiffs allege that, when they signed the form leases on page 1, they were unaware of the last three pages of the form. On that basis, plaintiffs contend that they are not bound by the LDW fee provision of paragraph 9 (again, on page 3) and that NLS's charging of the LDW fee (in the amount of $4.95) therefore constituted an overcharge and a breach of contract.

In the order appealed from, Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to liability on their cause of action for breach of contract. We reverse and deny the motion. On this record, questions of fact exist that preclude granting plaintiffs summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. Specifically, a factfinder must determine (1) whether plaintiffs received only the first page of the form lease or all four pages, and (2) whether, if plaintiffs received all four pages, they could reasonably have believed that all terms were contained on page 1. The latter question cannot be answered as a matter of law in plaintiffs' favor, given that page 1 of the form lease, which each plaintiff signed, states that it is "Page 1 of 4" and contains a reference, above the lessee's signature, to paragraph 11, which appears on page 3 of the form. Moreover, the record contains evidence that the form lease each plaintiff signed was printed on one sheet of paper, 11 inches wide by 17 inches long, folded in half to create a four-page booklet. We note that there is no legal requirement that a party's signature appear at the end of a written agreement (see Uniform Commercial Code § 1-201, Official Comment 39 [signature or other authentication of a written agreement "may be on any part of the document"]; cf. Riverside S. Planning Corp. v CRP/Extell Riverside, L.P., 60 AD3d 61, 67 [2008], affd 13 NY3d 398 [2009] ["there is no legal requirement that contractual provisions fixing the term of a contract must appear at the end of . . . the document"]). Finally, that the form lease did not specify the amount of the LDW fee did not render the lease or its provision for the LDW fee void (see Uniform Commercial Code § 2A-204[3] {"Although one or more terms are left open, a lease contract does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties have intended to make a lease contract and there is a reasonably certain basis for giving an appropriate remedy"]). Thus, if the LDW fee provision is found to be part of the agreement, NLS is entitled to set the fee, provided the fee is reasonable.