Category: CPLR

CPLR 2214 Med Mal

CPLR 2214(c)

Garrison v Quirk, 2014 NY Slip Op 05947 [2nd Dept. 2014]

"A physician moving for summary judgment dismissing a complaint alleging medical malpractice must establish, prima facie, either that there was no departure or that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries" (Garrett v University Assoc. in Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 95 AD3d 823, 825). "The burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact only upon the defendant physician's meeting the initial burden, and only as to the elements on which the defendant met the prima facie burden" (id. at 825 [citation omitted]). Here, as the Supreme Court correctly determined, the moving defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In forming their opinions, the moving defendants' medical experts did not examine the plaintiff's decedent but relied upon, inter alia, medical reports and medical records that were not annexed to the motion (see LaVecchia v Bilello, 76 AD3d 548; Farmer v City of New York, 25 AD3d 649, 650; see also Jian-Yu Zhang v Qiang Wang, 24 AD3d 611, 612). Although the moving defendants contend that they provided the Supreme Court with a CD-R containing the medical records relied upon by their experts, there is no evidence that the CD-R provided to the court properly contained the certified medical records, or was even readable by the court (see CPLR 2214[c]; Loeb v Tanenbaum, 124 AD2d 941, 942; see generally 22 NYCRR 202.5[b]). Moreover, even if a readable CD-R was previously submitted to the court in connection with an earlier motion in this case, the Supreme Court should "not be compelled, absent a rule providing otherwise, to locate previously submitted documents in the electronic record in considering subsequent motions" (Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158, 179). The moving defendants' remaining contentions are without merit. Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly denied the motion.

CPLR 5015(a)(4) and a stipulation

CPLR 5015(a)(4)

Macaluso v Macaluso, 2014 NY Slip Op 06064 [2nd Dept. 2014]

Where there is no legal or equitable basis to enter a judgment against a particular party, such judgment must be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) (see Mazelier v 634 W. 135, LLC, 22 AD3d 361, 364). Here, however, the judgment entered October 20, 2010, was properly issued, pursuant to an order dated June 18, 2010, against the plaintiff individually, as a remedy for the plaintiff's failure to comply with his personal obligations under the parties' stipulation of settlement. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, while he may have commenced this action "in the right of S & M Heating Corp.," the record is clear that the corporation was not a party to the stipulation. Rather, the agreement, which was placed on the record in open court, provided that the plaintiff would discontinue the action and would receive certain benefits from, and undertake certain obligations to, his late brother, Santo F. Macaluso, Jr. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment.

 

CPLR 3211, 3013, 3016, 3018, 3019

CPLR 3211(a)(7)

CPLR 3016(b)

CPLR 3013

CPLR 3018(b)

CPLR 3019(a)

Friedland Realty, Inc. v 416 W, LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 06052 [2nd Dept. 2014]

On a motion to dismiss a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept all facts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Nonnon v City of New York, 9 NY3d 825, 827; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Siracusa v Sager, 105 AD3d 937, 938).

"A claim of mutual mistake is stated where the allegations indicate that the parties have reached an oral agreement and, unknown to either, the signed writing does not express that agreement" (Aventine Inv. Mgt. v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 265 AD2d 513, 514; see Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 573; Phillips v Phillips, 300 AD2d 642, 643). Absent fraud, "the mistake shown must be one made by both parties to the agreement, so that the intentions of neither are expressed in it" (Migliore v Manzo, 28 AD3d 620, 621; see Ribacoff v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 2 AD3d 153, 154; Matter of Shaw, 202 AD2d 433, 434). "A claim predicated on mutual mistake must be pleaded with the requisite particularity necessitated under CPLR 3016(b)" (Simkin v Blank, 19 NY3d 46, 52), which provides that "where a cause of action or defense is based upon misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, wilful default, breach of trust or undue influence, the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail." Ultimately, the proponent of reformation based on mutual mistake must demonstrate the particulars of the actual agreement intended by the parties, based on the particularized allegations in the complaint (see Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d at 574; George Backer Mgt. Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 220).

Here, the defendant's second counterclaim and third affirmative defense did not describe the terms of the oral modification that the parties allegedly agreed to, or how those terms differed from the terms of the written agreement. Instead, that counterclaim and affirmative defense recited, in conclusory fashion, that the terms that had actually been agreed to by the parties prior to the writing, and which were allegedly confirmed pursuant to the oral modification, provided that the plaintiff was only entitled to a "reduced fee," but provided no specifics as to the amount of that reduced fee, or under what circumstances such a reduced fee was to be paid. Similarly, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff "was to be compensated for an introduction" to a prospective lessee, but alleged no details as to how its obligation to compensate the plaintiff for securing such an introduction differed from the terms of the written agreement.

Since the allegations of mutual mistake set forth in the defendant's second counterclaim and third affirmative defense were not made with the requisite particularity (see generally CPLR 3016[b]; Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co. v United States Underwriters Ins. Co., 36 AD3d 441, 443), they failed to state a cause of action or defense, respectively, and the Supreme Court correctly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to dismiss that counterclaim and affirmative defense.

Katz v Miller, 2014 NY Slip Op 05957 [2nd Dept. 2014]

However, the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were for summary judgment striking the first through twelfth affirmative defenses. The second and eleventh affirmative defenses were not substantiated with factual allegations, and were conclusory in nature (see CPLR 3013, 3018[b]; Becher v Feller, 64 AD3d 672, 677; Cohen Fashion Opt., Inc. v V & M Opt., Inc., 51 AD3d 619). The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law striking the first, third through tenth, and twelfth affirmative defenses, and the Toppin defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).

The Supreme Court should also have granted those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the second and third counterclaims, which were in the nature of defenses to the complaint and did not assert facts upon which affirmative relief may be granted (see CPLR 3019[a]; P.J.P. Mech. Corp. v. Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 65 AD3d 195, 199-200). The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first counterclaim (see Real Property Law § 282).

CPLR 3025 [mere lateness not a bar]

CPLR 3025(b)

Ciminello v Sullivan, 2014 NY Slip Op 06048 [2nd Dept. 2014]

Although the plaintiff delayed in making the motion for leave to amend, mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment—it must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side (see Henry v MTA, 106 AD3d 874, 875; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Dimura, 104 AD3d 796, 797; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Sharif, 89 AD3d 723, 724). Brian C. Sullivan and Hartford cannot claim significant prejudice, since the proposed amendment arises out of the same facts as those set forth in the first amended complaint (see Koenig v Action Target, Inc., 76 AD3d 997, 997-998; Maloney Carpentry, Inc. v Budnik, 37 AD3d 558, 558).

Schelchere v Halls, 2014 NY Slip Op 05970 [2nd Dept. 2014]

Here, given the plaintiffs' extensive and unexplained delay in seeking to amend their complaint based on facts that were known to them since the onset of the litigation (see Heller v Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 AD2d 20, 24; Whalen v 50 Sutton Place S. Owners, 276 AD2d 356, 357; Caruso v Anpro, Ltd., 215 AD2d 713, 714), the prejudice to the defendant that would result from the amendment, and the plaintiffs' improper submission of a portion of their request for leave to amend and supporting evidence for the first time in their reply papers on the motion (see Bjorke v Rubenstein, 38 AD3d 580, 581; Drake v Drake, 296 AD2d 566; Wright v Cetek Technologies., 289 AD2d 569, 570), the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint.

CPLR 3215 and Collateral Estoppel

CPLR 3215

Collateral Estoppel

Abrahams v Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 06042 [2nd Dept. 2014]

In this action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant. In support of the motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, a complaint dated April 7, 2012. The defendant opposed the motion, offering proof that this complaint was the same complaint that had been filed in a prior action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty. By order entered December 29, 2009, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in that prior action, and this Court affirmed that order (see Abrahams v Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co., 81 AD3d 759).

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the complaint in the instant action is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation in a subsequent action of an issue raised in a prior action and decided against that party (see Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303; Zanani v Schvimmer, 117 AD3d 941; Nappy v Nappy, 100 AD3d 843). "The litigant seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel must demonstrate that the decisive issue was necessarily decided in the prior action against a party," and "the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination" (Buechel v Bain, 97 NY2d at 304; see Nappy v Nappy, 100 AD3d at 845; Matter of Simmons v Simmons, 91 AD3d 960; Nachum v Ezagui, 83 AD3d 1017).

Here, the defendant established that the decisive issues in this case were necessarily decided against the plaintiff in the prior case, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to contest that prior determination. Thus, the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff from maintaining this action. Although the defendant allegedly defaulted in answering the complaint in the instant action, even where such a default has occurred, a plaintiff is only entitled to a default judgment if the complaint states a viable cause of action (see Aprea v New York State Bd. of Elections, 103 AD3d 1059, 1061; Elam v Altered Ego Realty Holding Corp., 114 AD3d 901; Venturella-Ferretti v Ferretti, 74 AD3d 792, 793; Garcia v Pepe, 42 AD3d 427, 430). Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has no viable cause of action against the defendant that would warrant entry of a default judgment against it (see Garcia v Pepe, 42 AD3d at 430).

CPLR 202 [borrowing statute] and CPLR 205(a) [savings statute] [Ct. App]

CPLR 202

CPLR 205(a)

note the amicus

 

Norex Petroleum Ltd. v Blavatnik, 2014 NY Slip Op 04802 [2014]

This dramatic and long-running contest over control of a lucrative oil field in Western Siberia reduces at present to an open question of New York civil procedure involving the interplay of CPLR 202, New York's "borrowing" statute, and CPLR 205 (a), New York's "savings" statute. When a cause of action accrues outside New York and the plaintiff is a nonresident, section 202 "borrows" the statute of limitations of the jurisdiction where the claim [*2]arose, if shorter than New York's, to measure the lawsuit's timeliness [FN1]. New York's "savings" statute, section 205 (a), allows a plaintiff to refile claims within six months of a timely prior action's termination for reasons other than the merits or a plaintiff's unwillingness to prosecute the claims in a diligent manner.[FN2]

This appeal calls upon us to decide whether a nonresident plaintiff who filed a timely action in a New York federal court may refile claims arising from the same transaction in state court within six months of the federal action's non-merits termination, even though the suit would be untimely in the out-of-state jurisdiction where the claims accrued. We hold that such a lawsuit is not time-barred, and therefore reverse the Appellate Division.[FN3]

Its a long decision, click the case to read the rest.

Medical Reports: 22 NYCRR 202.17 [Ct. App.]

CPLR 3121(a)

CPLR 3101

CPLR 4411

22 NYCRR 202.17(b)(1)

Hamilton v Miller, 2014 NY Slip Op 04230 [2014]

In most personal injury cases, disclosure under this rule is straightforward. The injured plaintiff goes to the doctor for diagnosis and treatment. The doctor drafts a report. The plaintiff turns over the report to the defendant.

This case is more complicated. Plaintiffs allegedly suffered lead poisoning as children. Now adults, plaintiffs allege that their childhood exposure to lead caused them numerous injuries. It appears from the dearth of medical evidence in the record that plaintiffs may never have been treated for or diagnosed with many of the alleged injuries. This raises the question of what plaintiffs must disclose in order to comply with rule 202.17 (b) (1).

Plaintiffs argue that the rule requires them to turn over only those reports that currently exist from providers who have "previously treated or examined" them. They argue that they are not required to document or create medical evidence of every alleged injury. To the extent that plaintiffs are arguing that the rule does not obligate them to hire a medical provider to examine them and create a report solely for purposes of the litigations, we agree. Requiring a personal injury plaintiff to hire a medical professional to draft a report purely to satisfy 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) could make it prohibitively expensive for some plaintiffs to bring legitimate personal injury suits. Some plaintiffs may not be able to afford a medical examination or may not even have access to a doctor. Plaintiffs therefore need only produce reports from medical providers who have "previously treated or examined" them.

To the extent, however, that plaintiffs claim that they need to turn over only those medical reports that currently exist, we disagree. The rule obligates plaintiffs to provide comprehensive reports from their treating and examining medical providers — the reports "shall include a recital of the injuries and conditions as to which testimony will be offered at the trial" (22 NYCRR 202.17 [b] [1]) [emphasis added]). Plaintiffs therefore cannot avoid disclosure simply because their treating or examining medical providers have not drafted any reports within the meaning of rule 202.17 (b) (1) (see Ciriello v Virgues, 156 AD2d 417, 418 [2d Dept 1989] ["[T]he fact that a report never was prepared does not obviate the party's obligation under the rules"]; Davidson v Steer/Peanut Gallery, 277 AD2d 965, 965 [4th Dept 2000]; Pierson v [*3]Yourish, 122 AD2d 202, 203 [2d Dept 1986]). If plaintiffs' medical reports do not contain the information required by the rule, then plaintiffs must have the medical providers draft reports setting forth that information (see id.)[FN2]. If that is not possible, plaintiffs must seek relief from disclosure and explain why they cannot comply with the rule (see 22 NYCRR 202.17 [j]).

We conclude therefore that Supreme Court abused its discretion in requiring plaintiffs to provide medical evidence ofeach alleged injury or otherwise be precluded from offering evidence of that injury at trial. Supreme Court's motivation for granting that relief is understandable. Plaintiffs' counsel filed boilerplate bills of particulars and then did not disclose medical records substantiating the alleged injuries. To that end, plaintiffs should amend their respective bills of particulars to reflect those injuries actually sustained. Nonetheless, although Supreme Court had wide, inherent discretion to manage discovery, foster orderly proceedings, and limit counsel's gamesmanship (see Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 NY2d 952, 954 [1998]), the ordered relief exceeded the court's power.

Supreme Court also granted relief beyond that contemplated by rule 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) by requiring plaintiffs to produce, prior to the defense examination, a medical report causally relating plaintiffs' injuries to lead paint exposure or be precluded from offering proof of such injuries at trial. The rule requires that the medical reports "include a recital of the injuries and the conditions as to which testimony will be offered at the trial, . . . including a [*4]description of the injuries, a diagnosis, and a prognosis." There is no requirement that medical providers causally relate the injury to the defendant's negligence or, in this case, the lead paint exposure.

If determining causation requires evidence from a medical professional, causation is more appropriately dealt with at the expert discovery phase and pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d). If defendants wish to expedite expert discovery, they can move in Supreme Court for amendment of the scheduling orders. Should plaintiffs fail to produce any evidence of causation, then defendants can move for and obtain summary judgment.

Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff Hamilton's CPLR 4511 motion to take judicial notice of 42 USC § 4851. That provision contains Congress's findings justifying legislation aimed at reducing lead — findings such as: "at low levels, lead poisoning in children causes intelligence quotient deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity, and behavior problems;" and "the Federal Government must take a leadership role in building the infrastructure—including an informed public, State and local delivery systems, certified inspectors, contractors, and laboratories, trained workers, and available financing and insurance—necessary to ensure that the national goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing can be achieved as expeditiously as possible" (42 USC § 4851 [2], [8]). Hamilton apparently sought judicial notice of the federal provision in order to avoid having to prove general causation — that lead paint exposure can cause some or all of his alleged injuries.

CPLR 4511 allows a court to take notice of federal and foreign state law, not facts, that is relevant to a proceeding (CPLR 4511; Pfleuger v Pfleuger, 304 NY 148, 151 [1952]). The congressional findings in support of legislation seeking to reduce amounts of lead in homes, though codified in a federal statute, are not "law" that is relevant to Hamilton's case. Taking judicial notice of them under CPLR 4511 would be inappropriate.

What Hamilton really wanted was to have Supreme Court take judicial notice of the fact that exposure to lead paint can cause injury. "To be sure, a court may take judicial notice of facts which are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy" (People v Jones, 73 NY2d 427, 431 [1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]). But general causation, at least in scientifically complex cases, is not such a fact. Hamilton needs to prove, through scientific evidence, that exposure to lead-based paint can cause the injuries of which he complains (see Parker v Mobile Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 448 [2006]). He cannot avoid that burden simply because Congress, in statutory preambles, has opined on the dangers of lead-based paint.Accordingly, in each case, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by remitting to Supreme Court for further [*5]proceedings in accordance with this opinion and, as so modified, affirmed, and the certified question answered in the negative.

Cant’t hide investigation behind attorney client privilege

CPLR 3101

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v TransCanada Energy USA, Inc., 2014 NY Slip Op 01283 [1st Dept. 2014] 

The motion court properly found that the majority of the documents sought to be withheld are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine or as materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. The record shows that the insurance companies retained counsel to provide a coverage opinion, i.e. an opinion as to whether the insurance companies should pay or deny the claims. Documents prepared in the ordinary course of an insurer's investigation of whether to pay or deny a claim are not privileged, and do not become so " merely because [the] investigation was conducted by an attorney'" (see Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190, 191 [1st Dept 2005]).

 

CPLR 2104

CPLR 2104

Tavolacci v Tavolacci, 2014 NY Slip Op 00986 [2nd Dept. 2014]

Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the record demonstrates that the parties validly entered into a comprehensive open-court stipulation (see CPLR 2104; Pretterhofer v Pretterhofer, 37 AD3d at 446; Borghoff v Borghoff, 8 AD3d 519) by which the plaintiff unequivocally, knowingly, and voluntarily agreed to be bound (see Pretterhofer v Pretterhofer, 37 AD3d at 446). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion, in effect, to vacate the stipulation of settlement and properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to incorporate the stipulation of settlement into the judgment of divorce.

Emphasis mine.

a 90 day notice that wasnt

CPLR 3216

Kapnisakis v Woo, 2014 NY Slip Op 00967 [2nd Dept. 2014]

However, the defendants did not move to hold the plaintiff in default of those provisions. Moreover, the order dated August 6, 2010, was not a valid 90-day notice, since it directed the filing of a note of issue in less than 90 days (see Gladman v Messuri, 71 AD3d 827, 828). Therefore, the plaintiff's failure to file a note of issue was of no consequence.

On November 12, 2010, the action was marked "Disposed" by the clerk. Within one year, on November 10, 2011, the plaintiff moved, in effect, to restore the action to active status, and annexed to that motion his opposition papers to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the motion.

Since no note of issue was filed in this case, this action was not on the trial calendar, and CPLR 3404 did not apply (see Khaolaead v Leisure Video, 18 AD3d 820; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190). Accordingly, there was no basis for denying the motion to restore (see Hemberger v Jamaica Hosp., 306 AD2d 244).

The plaintiff was never adjudicated in default of the order dated August 6, 2010, and he has now complied with all binding provisions of that order, including filing papers in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Under the particular circumstances of this case, including the current procedural posture of the action, a determination of the issues on the merits, in keeping with the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, is warranted (see Bunch v Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 AD3d 391).

Emphasis mine.