22 NYCRR 202.21

Today in the First Department (22 NYCRR 202.2, CPLR R. 3211, CPLR R. 3212, CPLR § 306-b, CPLR § 3121, SOL)

Several decisions popped out of the Appellate Division, First Department, today. In a break from my normal posting style, where I try to split posts between sections and rules, I'm going to post the few decisions that I found interesting.

Ocasio-Gary v Lawrence Hosp., 2010 NY Slip Op 00003 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Even had St. Barnabas met its initial burden, plaintiff's expert's submission raises triable issues of fact regarding the hospital's negligence (see DaRonco v White Plains Hosp. Ctr., 215 AD2d 339 [1995]). The trial court should not have rejected the expert's opinion on the ground that the expert failed to expressly state that he or she possessed the requisite background and knowledge in emergency medicine to render an opinion. The expert, who is board certified in internal medicine, is qualified to render an opinion as to diagnosis and treatment with respect to the symptoms presented by the decedent. In contrast, the expert's affirmation in Browder v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (37 AD3d 375 [2007]), cited by the trial court, failed to indicate either the expert's specialty or that he or she possessed the requisite knowledge to furnish a reliable opinion. Venue should be retained in Bronx County. The only ground for the motion to change venue was the dismissal of the complaint against St. Barnabas, and the complaint has been reinstated.

The motion to vacate plaintiff's note of issue, served more than 20 days after service of that note, was properly denied as untimely (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[e]), "no showing of special circumstances or adequate reason for the delay having been offered" (Arnold v New York City Hous. Auth., 282 AD2d 378 [2001]). Nor did the court err in finding that defendant Orin failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time in which to file his motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212[a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]).

Johnson v Concourse Vil., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 00010 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Although plaintiff's counsel served her pleadings just one day after the applicable 120-day service period expired (see CPLR 306-b), and counsel offered proof that he attempted to arrange for service with eight days remaining out of the 120-day period, he nonetheless failed to show diligence in his efforts to effect service, particularly as the three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214[5]) had already expired, and he did not follow up with the process server regarding completion of service until after the 120-day service period had expired. There was no evidence to indicate that the corporate defendants could not be located, or that they could not be readily served through the Secretary of State. Furthermore, counsel waited until after defendants moved to dismiss before he cross-moved for an extension of the time to serve some several months later. Such evidence of lack of diligence undermines plaintiff's "good cause" argument in support of her extension request (see generally Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]).

Nor is a grant of an extension to serve the pleadings warranted in the interest of justice. The circumstances presented, including that the statute of limitations expired, plaintiff's lack of diligence in prosecuting this action, the lack of probative evidence offered as to the claim's merit, the vague allegations of injury, the lack of notice given of the claim for more than three years and three months, the prejudice to defendants and the several month delay in moving for an extension of the time to serve, demonstrate that the dismissal of this action was appropriate (see Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 816 [2005]; Posada v Pelaez, 37 AD3d 168 [2007]; compare de Vries v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 11 AD3d 312 [2004]).

One day late.

Suss v New York Media, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 00011 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

We reject plaintiff's argument that such evidence fails to show, prima facie, that the issue first was published on April 29. The affidavits submitted by defendants were made with personal knowledge of the issue's distribution date; the distributor's affidavit was the proper vehicle for the submission of photographs taken by him and his staff (see H.P.S. Capitol v Mobil Oil Corp., 186 AD2d 98, 98 [1992]); and the photographs, as enhanced and highlighted in defendants' reply, clearly depict what they are claimed to depict. In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit any evidence of a later publication.

We also reject plaintiff's argument that unless the court gives CPLR 3211(c) notice of its intention to do so, it may not consider nondocumentary evidentiary materials for fact-finding purposes on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) (see Alverio v New York Eye & [*2]Ear Infirmary, 123 AD2d 568 [1986]; Lim v Choices, Inc., 60 AD3d 739 [2009]).

Welter v Feigenbaum, 2010 NY Slip Op 00012 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

A plaintiff, in an action for negligent transmittal of genital herpes simplex II, may demand that the defendant submit to a blood test to determine if the latter indeed has the virus (see CPLR 3121). Since the test was ordered in conjunction with the litigation, it is not subject to the physician-patient privilege (see Connors, McKinney's CPLR Practice Commentary C3121:2). Even were the privilege to apply, defendant waived it by asserting the affirmative defense that he was asymptomatic (see e.g. Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287-288 [1989]). Defendant's effort to limit the scope of discovery has simply focused the issue on whether or not he has the virus. This issue is relevant to — and potentially dispositive of — the action. If the test is negative, the case will be subject to dismissal. If, on the other hand, it is positive, defendant will have an opportunity to prove his affirmative defenses that he did not have the virus in 2002, or was unaware that he had it or was asymptomatic at the time of alleged transmittal to plaintiff.

All concur except Andrias and McGuire, JJ., who concur in a separate memorandum by McGuire, J. as follows:

McGUIRE, J. (concurring)

We write separately to emphasize that we express no view on the issue of whether, if the test is positive, it is adm
issible at trial (see People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777 [1988] ["(e)ven where technically relevant evidence is admissible, it may still be excluded by the trial court in the [*2]exercise of its discretion if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that it will unfairly prejudice the other side or mislead the jury"]).

The herpes case.

Post Note of Issue Discovery and Privilege, but not in that order

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note of issue and certificate of readiness

CPLR § 3101(d) Trial Preparation (2) Materials

CPLR § 3101(c) Attorney's work product

McClier Corp. v United States Rebar, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 06786 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

In response to plaintiff's discovery demands, defendants submitted
privilege logs that identified each of the documents withheld and set
forth a basis for the assertion of a privilege as to each. The motion
court then conducted an in camera review of the withheld documents and
ruled that most were protected by either the attorney-client privilege
(CPLR 3101[b]) or the immunities for attorney work product (CPLR
3101[c]) and materials prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101[d][2]). No
basis exists to disturb this ruling. Documents in an insurer's claim
file that were prepared for litigation against its insured are immune
from disclosure (Grotallio v Soft Drink Leasing Corp., 97 AD2d
383 [1983]), and, while documents prepared in an insurer's ordinary
course of business in investigating whether to accept or reject
coverage are discoverable (Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190, 191 [2005]), there is no [*2]indication
that any such documents are being protected here. We have considered
plaintiff's remaining arguments and find unavailing.

Compare with 148 Magnolia, LLC v Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 03793 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)("Here the motion court properly
determined that the documents were not protected because appellant
failed to demonstrate that the investigation was conducted solely in
anticipation of litigation. Such reports of insurance investigators or
adjusters prepared during the processing of a claim are discoverable in
the regular course of the insurance company's business")

Singh v 244 W. 39th St. Realty, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 06826 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

To prevent substantial prejudice, the Supreme Court, in its
discretion, may grant leave to conduct additional discovery after the
filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness where the moving
party demonstrates that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances"
developed subsequent to the filing requiring additional pretrial
proceedings (22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; see James v New York City Tr. Auth., 294 AD2d 471, 472; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265
AD2d 135, 140). Here, approximately nine months after the filing of the
note of issue, the plaintiff served a supplemental bill of particulars
and an expert report with worksheets alleging that the cost of his
future medical care would be approximately $8.9 million. This amount
was more than three times what had been alleged earlier. Under these
circumstances, the defendants demonstrated that "unusual or
unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing of the
note of issue, justifying an additional deposition of the plaintiff
regarding his claim for future medical care (cf. Karakostas v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 306
AD2d 381, 382). Accordingly, that branch of the defendants' motion
which was for leave to conduct additional discovery of the plaintiff
with respect to his claim for future medical care should have been
granted.

The defendants, however, failed to demonstrate that "unusual or
unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing of the
note of issue with respect to surveillance videos [*2]of
the plaintiff or the plaintiff's claim for lost wages. The plaintiff's
supplemental bill of particulars claiming lost wages was served
approximately nine months prior to the filing of the note of issue and
one year and eight months prior to the defendants' motion, and the
plaintiff did not allege that the amount of his claim for lost wages,
as opposed to his claim for future medical care, had changed
dramatically (see Schenk v Maloney, 266 AD2d 199, 200; Frangella v Sussman, 254
AD2d 391, 392). Moreover, the defendants failed to explain why the
surveillance could not have been conducted earlier in the discovery
process (see Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d at 140).
Accordingly, those branches of the defendants' motion which were for
leave to conduct additional discovery of the plaintiff with respect to
the surveillance videos and his claim for lost wages were properly
denied.

Polygram Holding, Inc. v Cafaro, 2009 NY Slip Op 07165 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered
April 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the
briefs, limited the scope of an EBT granted to defendant and denied
defendant's motion to strike the note of issue, unanimously affirmed,
without costs.

The court appropriately struck a discretionary balance in
granting defendant certain additional discovery consistent with our
prior discovery ruling in this matter (42 AD3d 339, 340-341), while
maintaining control of its trial calendar (Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190 [2005]).

The bold, of course, is mine.

Post-NOT Discovery; 22 NYCRR 202.21

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note of issue and certificate of readiness

CPLR § 3126 Penalties for refusal to comply with order or to disclose

CPLR R. 5515 Taking an appeal; notice of appeal

1. An
appeal shall be taken by serving on the adverse party a notice of
appeal and filing it in the office where the judgment or order of the
court of original instance is entered except that where an order
granting permission to appeal is made, the appeal is taken when such
order is entered. A notice shall designate the party taking the appeal,
the judgment or order or specific part of the judgment or order
appealed from and the court to which the appeal is taken.

Racine v Grant, 2009 NY Slip Op 06127 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting
the defendants' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the
complaint to the extent of directing the plaintiff to comply with a
demand for discovery which was annexed to the cross motion papers, as
the demand was made more than one year after a note of issue had been
filed in the action. The defendants failed to make the requisite
showing that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" had arisen after
the filing of the note of issue (22 NYCRR 202.21[d], [e]; see Silverberg v Guzman, 61 AD3d 955; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v P.M.A. Corp., 34 AD3d 793, 794; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 138; Marks v Morrison, 275 AD2d 1027), to justify the demanded disclosure at this late stage of the action.

The plaintiff's argument that the Supreme Court should have
granted his motion to strike the defendants' answer is not properly
before us, as the plaintiff's notice of appeal limited the scope of the
appeal to that part of the Supreme Court's order which determined the
defendants' cross [*2]motion (see CPLR 5515[1]; Marciano v Ran Oil Co., E., LLC, 63 AD3d 1118).

The bold is mine.

Law of the case

Yetnikoff v Mascardo, 2009 NY Slip Op 04712 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Plaintiff moved to vacate his default, arguing he had never received
the landlord defendants' motion for summary judgment on the
counterclaims. This motion was also denied on the ground that plaintiff
failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default or evidence of a
meritorious defense.

With respect to the court's modification of its statement
concerning the landlord's position on rescission, the court correctly
found that counsel's statement that she had made a mistake in
communicating to the court was new evidence properly considered on the
motion. The law of the case is not implicated when a court alters its
own ruling (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 59 AD3d 333, 335 [2009]).

Riskin v Pam Vic Enters., Ltd., 2009 NY Slip Op 04730 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

The court did not err in re-referring the matter of calculating the
amount due to plaintiffs to a referee, inasmuch as no report was filed
after the previous referral. Plaintiffs' claim, that the previous grant
of partial summary judgment to them as against defendants in this
foreclosure action became the "law of the case" and extinguished the
claims of the proposed intervenor, Ted Singer, is unpreserved. Were we
to review it, we would find that the law of the case doctrine does not
apply, since Singer was not a party to the earlier proceedings herein (see Hass & Gottlieb v Sook Hi Lee, 11 AD3d 230, 231-232 [2004]).

The bold is mine.

22 NYCRR 202.21(d); CPLR § 3126; CPLR 5015; Presumption of receipt

CPLR § 3126 Penalties for refusal to comply with order or to disclose

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or order

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note of issue and certificate of readiness
(d) Pretrial proceedings
Where a party is prevented from filing a note of issue and certificate
of readiness because a pretrial proceeding has not been completed for
any reason beyond the control of the party, the court, upon motion
supported by affidavit, may permit the party to file a note of issue
upon such conditions as the court deems appropriate. Where unusual or
unanticipated circumstances develop subsequent to the filing of a note
of issue and certificate of readiness which require additional pretrial
proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice, the court, upon motion
supported by affidavit, may grant permission to conduct such necessary
proceedings.

Redmond v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2009 NY Slip Op 04042 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful
death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens
County (O'Donoghue, J.), entered September 16, 2008, which denied her
motion to vacate an order of the same court dated April 10, 2008, sua
sponte, precluding her from conducting examinations before trial of the
defendants Kenneth Fretwell and Jeffrey Chan pursuant to CPLR 3126.

ORDERED that the order entered September 16, 2008, is reversed,
on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or
disbursements, and the motion to vacate the order dated April 10, 2008,
is granted.

The record does not demonstrate that the plaintiff's counsel
willfully and contumaciously obstructed the progress of disclosure with
respect to the examinations before trial of the defendants Kenneth
Fretwell and Jeffrey Chan (hereinafter the defendant doctors) (see Maceno v Franklin Hosp. Med. Ctr., 14 AD3d 663, 664; Santigate v Linsalata, 304 AD2d 639, 641; Gorokhova v Belulovich,
267 AD2d 202, 203). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently
exercised its discretion in, sua sponte, imposing the sanction of
preclusion with respect to the examination before trial of the
defendant doctors (see CPLR 3126; cf., Mahopac Ophthalmology, P.C. v Tarasevich, 21 AD3d 351, 352), and in denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate the order imposing that sanction.
[*2]

Meadow Lane Equities Corp. v Hill, 2009 NY Slip Op 04396 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction, the defendants
appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County
(Phelan, J.), entered June 11, 2008, as denied their motion, inter
alia, to direct nonparty First New York Partners to preserve certain
evidence contained on electronic databases and to permit the
examination thereof.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in
determining that the defendants did not demonstrate unusual or
unanticipated circumstances warranting the discovery requested through
their motion (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; Gomez v New York City Tr. Auth., 19 AD3d 366, 366-367; cf. Scanga v Family Practice Assoc. of Rockland, P.C., 41 AD3d 576, 576-577).

Caprio v 1025 Manhattan Ave. Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 04367 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

In order to vacate their default in opposing the plaintiffs' motion
pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike their answers, the defendants were
required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default and a
meritorious defense to both the motion and the action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Nowell v NYU Med. Ctr., 55 AD3d 573; Raciti v Sands Point Nursing Home, 54 AD3d 1014; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 392; Diamond v Vitucci, 36 AD3d 650).
The defendants failed to set forth a reasonable excuse for their
default in opposing the plaintiffs' motion. Although the defendants'
attorney claimed that he did not receive the plaintiffs' motion papers,
his mere denial of receipt was insufficient to rebut the proof that the
motions papers were properly mailed and the presumption of receipt
arising from that proof (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122; [*2]Diamond v Vitucci, 36 AD3d 650; Philippi v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 16 AD3d 654, 655; Sarva v Chakravorty, 14 AD3d 689; Platonov v Sciabarra, 305
AD2d 651). The defendants also failed to demonstrate a meritorious
defense to the motion to strike their answers by offering an adequate
explanation for their failure to fully and timely respond to the
plaintiffs' discovery demands and court directives requiring compliance
with such demands (see Howe v Jeremiah, 51 AD3d 975; Watson v Hall, 43 AD3d 435, 436; Devito v J & J Towing, Inc., 17
AD3d 624). Under these circumstances, the defendants' motion to vacate
the order dated February 7, 2008, should have been denied.

The bold is mine.