Category: CPLR

Timely, but Improper: CPLR § 3012(d)

CPLR § 3012 Service of pleadings and demand for complaint
(d) Extension of time to appear or plead

Gazes v Bennett, 2010 NY Slip Op 01575 (App. Div., 1st, 2010)

Plaintiff brought this malpractice action against defendant in connection with his representation of the debtor and trustee in a wrongful termination action (see Horan v New York Tel. Co., 309 AD2d 642 [2003]). Plaintiff's time to commence this action and serve a summons and complaint expired on September 13, 2007, six months after the dismissal of an earlier action arising out of the same transactions (see CPLR 205[a]). Commencement was timely, but attempted service on September 12, 2007 was defective because the mailing component of service was sent to defendant's place of work in an envelope indicating it was from a law firm, an error attributable to the process server. The denial of plaintiff's request that defendant be compelled to accept late service of the pleadings was contained in a final order, and is thus appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2]).

A court may "compel the acceptance of a pleading untimely served, upon such terms as may be just and upon a showing of reasonable excuse for delay" (CPLR 3012[d]). Plaintiff submitted a reasonable excuse for delay in proper service — namely, the process server's error — which was attributable to counsel and constituted excusable law office failure (see CPLR 2005).

Plaintiff set forth a meritorious action, and the delay was excusable in light of its brevity and the absence of any pattern of default; defendant should have been compelled to accept late service pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) (see Nason v Fisher, 309 AD2d 526 [2003]). This is especially so in the absence of any prejudice to defendant, who was actually and timely — although not properly — served with the complaint (see Lisojo v Phillip, 188 AD2d 369 [1992]; see also CPLR 2001, 2004), and in the absence of any indication that plaintiff intended to abandon his claim (see Nolan v Lechner, 60 AD3d 473 [2009]).

The bold is mine.

3102 Pre-Action Discovery

CPLR § 3102 Method of obtaining disclosure
(c) Before action commenced

Matter of Champion v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 2010 NY Slip Op 01585 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered April 29, 2009, which granted petitioner's motion for pre-action discovery to the extent of directing that respondents provide certain discovery and inspection of evidence within 30 days of service of a copy of the order, and continuing the stay in the order to show cause prohibiting respondents from altering, changing, repairing, servicing, modifying, moving, selling or in any other way disposing of any vehicle(s) and/or plow(s) utilized by respondents for any snow removal operations on the date of the hit and run motor vehicle accident at or near the subject intersection, unanimously modified, on the law, to strike the direction that respondents produce items 2(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j), (k), (m) and (n), limit the production of items 2(b), (c) and (o) to materials concerning the designated area between the hours of 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., and vacate the stay, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While petitioner has alleged sufficient facts to support her claim that respondents were negligent in operating the motor vehicle that caused her injury, she has failed to allege any facts supporting her negligent maintenance claim. Petitioner's requests for items 2(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j), (k), (m) and (n) serve no purpose other than to determine whether facts exist to support a cause of action related to a defect in the motor vehicle or the attached plow, which is not an appropriate use of CPLR 3102(c) (see Holzman v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 271 AD2d 346, 347-348 [2000]). Because petitioner has not offered facts sufficient to support a negligent maintenance claim or any other claim that would require respondents' vehicles and plows to be produced or inspected, the IAS court's stay should be vacated.

Petitioner's requests for items 2(b), (c) and (o) are material and necessary to petitioner's viable negligent operation claim, because they will assist her in identifying prospective defendants, particularly the operator of the motor vehicle, and in framing her complaint (see Christiano v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 1 AD3d 289, 289 [2003]). However, the order was overly broad with respect to those items, because there was no time limitation (id.). Since [*2]petitioner sought disclosure regarding an accident that allegedly occurred around 10:00 a.m., the order should be modified as indicated above.

The bold is mine.

The Problem with CPLR R. 3211(a)(7)

CPLR R. 3211(a)(7)  pleading fails to state a cause of action

Thomas v Thomas, 2010 NY Slip Op 01586 (App. Div., 1st, 2010)

Because the instant motion is pursuant to CPLR 3211, the complaint "is to be afforded a liberal construction (see, CPLR 3026). We accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory." (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). Applying this standard, plaintiffs have stated a cause of action for a constructive trust. As a preliminary matter, it is accepted that a constructive trust over real property can be imposed even where an underlying agreement is not in writing (see Sharp, 40 NY2d at 122). The complaint clearly alleges that Janet Thomas promised to transfer the property back to plaintiffs. It can be inferred that plaintiffs relied on that promise, or they would have not made the transfer. That plaintiffs meant to convey in their complaint that Janet Thomas would be unjustly enriched without judicial intervention can be similarly assumed.

While it is not clearly spelled out in the complaint that plaintiffs and Janet Thomas had a confidential relationship, Janet Thomas's affidavit, submitted in support of her motion, provides sufficient information to draw such an inference. Specifically, the affidavit volunteers the existence of the partner program and the fact that, until shortly before the transaction at issue, the parties were co-venturers in a quasi-banking enterprise, however informal that enterprise may have been. This is sufficient to infer that the parties had fiduciary responsibilities to one another [*3]which elevated the relationship from one of mere acquaintances to a "confidential" one. We disagree with the dissent's position that we may not consider Janet Thomas's affidavit. On a CPLR 3211 motion a plaintiff's affidavit "may be used freely to preserve inartfully pleaded, but potentially meritorious, claims" (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., Inc., 40 NY2d 633, 635 [1976]). It follows, a fortiori, that admissions in a defendant's affidavit may similarly be used to ascertain whether a plaintiff has a valid cause of action.

***

ROMÁN, J. (dissenting)

Since I believe that the majority misconstrues well settled law, applicable to motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7), I dissent.

***

When deciding a motion to dismiss a complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), all [*4]allegations in the complaint are deemed to be true (Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Dev. Corp., 96 NY2d 409, 414 [2001]; Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362, 366 [1998]). All reasonable inferences which can be drawn from the complaint and the allegations therein stated shall be resolved in favor of the plaintiff (id.). In opposition to such a motion, a plaintiff may submit affidavits to remedy defects in the complaint (CPLR 3211[c]; Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d at 366; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Amaro v Gani Realty Corp., 60 AD3d 491, 492 [2009]). If an affidavit is submitted for that purpose, it should be given its most favorable intendment (Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d at 366).

***

While a plaintiff can cure pleading defects by submitting an affidavit, it does not follow that any such defects in a plaintiff's pleadings can be cured by a defendant's submissions, affidavit or otherwise. Here the majority finds that the existence of a confidential relationship by virtue of an affidavit submitted by Janet Thomas in support of her motion to dismiss the complaint. While the majority's position finds some support in Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633 [1976], where the court held that affidavits can be used to correct pleading defects in a complaint, without ever stating whose affidavits could be so considered, in Leon and then again in Cron, the Court of Appeals, while citing Rovello, nevertheless implicitly narrowed the holding in Rovello, stating that "[i]n opposition to such a motion [one pursuant to CPLR 3211], a plaintiff may submit affidavits to remedy defects in the complaint' and preserve inartfully pleaded but potentially meritorious claims'" (Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d at 366, citing Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., Inc., 40 NY2d at 635-636 [emphasis added]). Thus, it is only a plaintiff's affidavit which can be used to remedy a defect in the complaint (id.; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 88; Amaro v Gani Realty Corp., 60 AD3d at 492; see also Fitzgerald v Federal Signal Corp., 63 AD3d 994, 995 [2009]).

The bold is mine.  (a)(7), like (a)(1), and like 5015, is constantly construed differently.  Someone needs to clear this mess up.

Error to replace a juror where no “evinced bias” is shown: CPLR § 4106

CPLR § 4106 Alternate jurors

Troutman v 957 Nassau Rd., LLC, 2010 NY Slip Op 00836 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

After the close of the plaintiffs' case, a juror informed the trial court that she knew one of the witnesses who was going to testify for the defense. The juror explained that she lived in the same neighborhood as the witness, and graduated from high school with her. The juror also indicated that the extent of their relationship was that they would occasionally see each other on the street, say hello, and ask each other how they were doing. The juror then indicated, in response to the court's questioning, that she would "treat" the witness "the same as all other witnesses," and that "nobody . . . started [the] case with an advantage." The court then voiced its "opinion" that the juror was "okay," "seemed like she could be fair," and should "stay."

However, defense counsel then made an application, which the plaintiffs' attorney opposed, for the juror to be replaced with an alternate juror. At that point, the trial court, upon observing that the "trial" was already a "lengthy" one, decided that "the safest course of action" would be to replace the juror with an alternate juror. The court explained that "a lot of times," jurors like the juror in question, who [*2]"know someone" and "say they think they will be okay," end up "hav[ing] a problem when they are making a decision." Hence, the court granted defense counsel's application. However, the court erred in doing so.

CPLR 4106 provides that, in a civil case, if, before the final submission of the case to the jury, a seated juror "dies, or becomes ill, or for any other reason is unable to perform his [or her] duty," the trial court may remove the juror and replace the juror with an alternate juror. This Court, in interpreting the phrase "or for any other reason is unable to perform his [or her] duty" (CPLR 4106), has determined that a seated juror in a civil case may be removed from the jury if he or she "has evinced a certain bias or prejudice against one of the parties" (Mark v Colgate Univ., 53 AD2d 884, 886; see Narvaez v Piccone, 16 AD3d 641, 642; French v Schiavo, 300 AD2d 119, 119-120). Here, however, there was no indication that the juror in question evinced any bias or prejudice against one of the parties. Furthermore, the trial court's concern that such a bias or prejudice might eventually surface was speculative. Under these circumstances, the court should have denied defense counsel's application, and should not have replaced the juror with an alternate juror (cf. Wisholek v Douglas, 280 AD2d 220, 224, revd on other grounds 97 NY2d 740). Therefore, the judgment must be reversed, the complaint reinstated, and the matter remitted for a new trial on the issue of liability.

The bold is mine.

CPLR R. 3212 Round Up

I've let these sit for too long.  These need to be posted, along with the 3211 cases, so that I can get to some of the more esoteric (probably not the right word) sections and rules.  Besides, I finally got a new computer, one that doesn't crash.  So I might as well put it to use.

CPLR R. 3212 Motion for summary judgment

CPLR R. 3214 Motions
heard by judge supervising disclosure; stay of disclosure

(b) Stay of disclosure: Service of a notice of motion under rule 3211, 3212, or section 3213 stays disclosure until determination of the motion unless the court orders otherwise. If the motion is based solely on the defense that the summons and complaint, summons with notice, or notice of petition and petition was not properly served, disclosure shall not be stayed unless the court orders otherwise.

Mazzocchi Wrecking Inc. v East 115th St. Realty Corp., 2010 NY Slip Op 01425 (App. Div., 1st, 2010)

Plaintiff's motion, based solely on the claim for breach of contract, was unsupported by an affidavit of a person with personal knowledge. The movant thus failed to meet its prima facie burden of proof, rendering the motion insufficient and lacking in probative value (Stainless, Inc. v Employers Fire Ins. Co., 69 AD2d 27, 31-32 [1979], affd 49 NY2d 924 [1980]).

Gonzalez v Nutech Auto Sales, 2010 NY Slip Op 00469 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

Under the circumstances of this case, since the motion was premature as no discovery had yet taken place (see CPLR 3212[f]; Harvey v Nealis, 61 AD3d 935; Valdivia v Consolidated Resistance Co. of Am., Inc., 54 AD3d 753), the Supreme Court erred in determining the motion on the merits.

Sutter v Wakefern Food Corp., 2010 NY Slip Op 00506 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant in 2002. In an amended order dated October 6, 2005, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In an order dated August 18, 2006, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for leave to renew, on both a "procedural and substantive basis." In July 2008 the defendant again moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff then separately moved for the admission, pro hac vice, of Florida attorney Antoinette R. Appel to appear on her behalf as co-counsel in this action. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion and, in effect, denied the plaintiff's motion as academic.

Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly-discovered evidence or other sufficient cause (see Kimber Mfg., Inc. v Hanzus, 56 AD3d 615; Crane v JAB Realty, LLC, 48 AD3d 504; Williams v City of White Plains, 6 AD3d 609; Davidson Metals Corp. v Marlo Dev. Co., 262 AD2d 599). Here, the Supreme Court should not have [*2]entertained the defendant's latest motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint since the defendant did not submit any newly-discovered evidence, or present other sufficient cause (see Kimber Mfg., Inc. v Hanzus, 56 AD3d 615; Selletti v Liotti, 45 AD3d 669; Williams v City of White Plains, 6 AD3d 609; Davidson Metals Corp. v Marlo Dev. Co., 262 AD2d 599).

Marcantonio v Picozzi, 2010 NY Slip Op 00822 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Picozzi and the law firm, thus rendering academic that branch of the plaintiffs' cross motion which was to compel those defendants to answer interrogatories. As to the defendants Project Real Estate, Inc., and John McHugh, their response to interrogatories was properly stayed pending determination of their motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3214[b]).


Williams v D & J School Bus, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 00141 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

In opposition, the City defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the third-party defendants had any involvement in this matter, merely arguing that their motion was premature, and that a deposition of Scialpi was necessary. While determination of a summary judgment motion may be delayed to allow for further discovery where evidence necessary to oppose the motion is unavailable to the opponent (see CPLR 3212[f]), "[a] determination of summary judgment cannot be avoided by a claimed need for discovery unless some evidentiary basis is offered to suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence" (Ruttura & Sons Constr. Co. v Petrocelli Constr., 257 AD2d 614, 615; see Wyllie v District Attorney of County of Kings, 2 AD3d 714, 717). A party's mere hope that further discovery will reveal the existence of a triable issue of fact is insufficient to delay determination of the motion (see Wyllie v District Attorney of County of Kings, 2 AD3d at 717; Weltmann v RWP Group, 232 AD2d 550). Here, as the Supreme Court correctly held, the City defendants failed to provide an evidentiary basis for their assertion that further discovery would lead to additional relevant evidence (see Lambert v Bracco, 18 AD3d 619, 620).

CPLR § 3130

CPLR § 3130 Use of interrogatories

1. Except as otherwise provided herein, after commencement of an action, any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories. Except in a matrimonial action, a party may not serve written interrogatories on another party and also demand a bill of particulars of the same party pursuant to section 3041. In the case of an action to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death predicated solely on a cause or causes of action for negligence, a party shall not be permitted to serve interrogatories on and conduct a deposition of the same party pursuant to rule 3107 without leave of court.

Nasca v D.M.R. Indus., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 01462 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel the defendant to comply with his demand for disclosure of its tax returns for the year 2000. The plaintiff failed to show that the information contained in the defendant's tax returns was indispensable to his claim and could not be obtained from other sources (see Pugliese v Mondello, 57 AD3d 637, 639-640; Benfeld v Fleming Props., LLC, 44 AD3d 599, 600).

Since the plaintiff had already served the defendant with a demand for a bill of particulars, CPLR 3130(1) precluded the plaintiff from serving the defendant with a set of interrogatories (see Hyman & Gilbert v Greenstein, 138 AD2d 678, 681). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel the defendant to respond to those interrogatories, and properly granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for a protective order with regard to those interrogatories.

Residence of Foreign Corporation: CPLR § 503

CPLR § 503 Venue based on residence

DeMichael v Jaeger, 2010 NY Slip Op 00918 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

For venue purposes, the sole residence of a foreign corporation is the county in which its principal office is located, as designated in its application for authority to conduct business filed with the State of New York, or an amendment thereof (see CPLR 503[c]; Business Corporation Law § 102[a][10]; Ashjian v Orion Power Holdings, Inc., 9 AD3d 440; Bailon v Avis Rent A Car, 270 AD2d 439; Collins v Trigen Energy Corp., 210 AD2d 283). Thus, the plaintiff properly placed venue of this action in Nassau County, as that was the county designated by the defendant American Teleradiology Nighthawks, P.C., in its application for authority. The defendant Kingston Hospital failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the convenience of nonparty witnesses would be [*2]served by changing venue from Nassau County to Ulster County (see Walsh v Mystic Tank Lines Corp., 51 AD3d 908; Markowitz v Makura, Inc., 29 AD3d 650; Mei Ying Wu v Waldbaum, Inc., 284 AD2d 434; McAdoo v Levinson, 143 AD2d 819).

The bold is mine.

CPLR R. 3212(a) Timing: Piggy-back Motions

CPLR R. 3212 Motion for summary judgment
(a) Time; kind of action

CPLR § 2211 Application for order; when motion made

Lennard v Khan, 2010 NY Slip Op 00482 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The plaintiff's independent medical examination occurred on December 4, 2008, thus requiring submission of any summary judgment motions by January 27, 2009, the earliest of the possible deadlines.

By notice of motion dated January 22, 2009, the defendants Fazal Khan and Ace Towing, LLC (hereinafter the respondents), moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The respondents served the plaintiff's counsel with the summary judgment motion on January 23, 2009, and filed the motion with the court on February 11, 2009.

The defendants Keith O. Prescod, Jr., and Desiree Klass separately moved for the same relief. They served the plaintiff's counsel with their motion papers on January 30, 2009, and filed them with the court on March 2, 2009.

***The plaintiff opposed both motions on the ground that they were untimely, but did not address the movants' arguments that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). In reply, the respondents argued that their motion was timely under CPLR 2211 because it had been served on the plaintiff's counsel within the time period allotted. In an order dated April 2, 2009, the Supreme Court granted the respondents' motion as timely and since it was unopposed on the merits. The court also denied the separate motion of Prescod and Klass as untimely. These appeals ensued.

"A motion on notice is made when a notice of the motion or an order to show cause is served" (CPLR 2211; see Rivera v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 29 AD3d 560, 561). Given that the respondents' motion was served on the plaintiff's counsel by mail on January 23, 2009, four days before the January 27, 2009, deadline, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the respondents' motion was timely.

Where one party makes a timely summary judgment motion, the court may properly consider an untimely summary judgment motion, provided the late motion is based on "nearly identical" grounds as the timely motion (Perfito v Einhorn, 62 AD3d 846, 847 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Step-Murphy, LLC v B & B Bros. Real Estate Corp., 60 AD3d 841, 844-845; Ianello v O'Connor, 58 AD3d 684; Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 591-592; Miranda v Devlin, 260 AD2d 451, 452). In effect, the "nearly identical" nature of the grounds supporting both motions serves as good cause sufficient to permit review on the merits of the untimely motion (Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d at 592). "Notably, the court, in the course of deciding the timely motion, is, in any event, empowered to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party" (see CPLR 3212[b]; Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d at 592).

Since the respondents' motion was already properly before the court, it improvidently exercised its discretion in refusing to consider the separate motion of Prescod and Klass, made on identical grounds, on the ground that the separate motion was untimely made (see Joyner-Pack v Sykes, 54 AD3d 727; Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d at 591; Miranda v Devlin, 260 AD2d 451). Further, since the plaintiff did not challenge the movants' contentions regarding serious injury, the separate motion should have been granted.

Here, the order required that a summary judgment motion be made by a certain date.  Watch out for orders or stipulations that require a motion to be filed by a certain date.

Further food for thought( h/t Damin Toell): Piquette v. City of New York, 4 A.D.3d 402 (App. Div., 2nd, 2004):

Although the municipal defendants' motion to set aside the jury verdict was made on insufficient notice (see CPLR 2214 [b]), the plaintiffs were not prejudiced by this procedural irregularity, and waived their objection to it by opposing the motion on the merits (see Henry v Gutenplan, 197 AD2d 608 [1993]; Adler v Gordon, 243 AD2d 365 [1997]; Matter of Venner, 235 AD2d 805 [1997]; Todd v Gull Contr. Co., 22 AD2d 904 [1964]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in refusing to determine the motion on its merits.

 

CPLR R. 2102(c); 22 NYCRR 202.5(d)(1) Bronx Clerks Agree to Follow Rules: Attorneys’ Minds Blown

CPLR R. 2102 Filing of papers
(c) A clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that purpose except where specifically directed to do so by statute or rules promulgated by the chief administrator of the courts, or order of the court.

22 NYCRR 202.5 Papers filed in court

(d)
(1)
[editor’s note: for the life of me I can’t find this thing.  Westlaw hasn’t updated itself yet and I can’t find it anywhere else.

The New York Law Journal (New Rule Specifies When Court Clerks Can Reject Lawsuit Documents) introduced us to a new rule (22 NYCRR 202.5(d)(1) detailing when and how a court clerk can reject a document.  The rule comes out of an Article 78 proceeding by Tilem & Campbell, whose papers were getting bounced by Bronx clerks unnecessarily.  After the Bronx clerks agreed to follow the law, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.  Crazy right, only after the clerks agreed to follow the law…  The new rule, allows the clerks to reject papers for only four reasons: (1) papers do not have an index number; (2) documents commencing or concluding a lawsuit that do not list the names of all parties; (3) filings offered in the wrong county; (4) documents not signed as required by court rules authorizing sanctions for frivolous contentions.

That’s it.  If (1)-(4) isn’t there, the clerk can’t reject it.  Period. 

The rule adds an additional twist, it requires clerks to date-stamp the rejected papers and write the reason for the rejection on the papers.  I don’t think a colored sheet with check-off reasons will suffice, but I’m going on what the NYLJ reported, I haven’t seen the rule myself.

Whether the clerks in other venues will agree to follow the rules remains to be seen.  The New York clerks might need a push.  They did the last time.

And, just because: The NYLJ article references 2102 as a section; it isn’t, it’s a rule, not that it matters.

CPLR § 203(f)

CPLR § 203(f) Claim in amended pleading

Fisher v Giuca, 2010 NY Slip Op 00218 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

Furthermore, the court properly denied the plaintiffs’ application for leave to serve an amended complaint. The allegations in the original complaint did not fairly apprise Cleary of “the occurrences . . . to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” (CPLR 203[f]). Thus, the new theories in the proposed amended complaint do not relate back to the original complaint, and are time-barred (see Panaccione v Acher, 30 AD3d 989, 990; Hyacinthe v Edwards, 10 AD3d 629, 631).