Although the motion court purported to deny respondent's motion for reargument, it effectively granted the motion by addressing the merits. Accordingly, the order is appealable, pursuant to CPLR 5701[a][2][viii].
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v. TC Acupuncture, P.C., NY Slip Op 01120 (1st Dep't February 18, 2021)
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination that the Department of Education did not constructively deny petitioner's first FOIL request, pursuant to 21 NYCRR 1401.5[d]. Under FOIL, any person may request and receive documents kept by a government agency, unless they are statutorily exempted from disclosure, and the burden rests on the agency to demonstrate the applicability of an exception. Here, the record does not establish how the unspecified litigation records, as well as the hearing and 10-day numbers requested by petitioner, if redacted, would allow a person in the school community to identify students with reasonably certainty, citing Public Officers Law § 87[2][a], [b]; 34 CFR § 99.3. Accordingly, the Appellate Division remanded for an in camera review of the documents and numbers to evaluate whether the exceptions are applicable.
Matter of Cuddy Law Firm, P.L.L.C. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., NY Slip Op 01121 (1st Dep't February 18, 2021)
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the denial of defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely file a certificate of merit pursuant to CPLR 3012-a, which provides that, in a medical malpractice action, "the complaint shall be accompanied by a certificate, executed by the attorney for the plaintiff, declaring that: (1) the attorney has reviewed the facts of the case and has consulted with at least one physician . . . who is licensed to practice in [any] state . . . and who the attorney reasonably believes is knowledgeable in the relevant issues involved in the particular action, and that the attorney has concluded on the basis of such review and consultation that there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of such action; or (2) the attorney was unable to obtain the consultation required . . . because a limitation of time . . . would bar the action and that the certificate . . . could not reasonably be obtained before such time expired. If a certificate is executed pursuant to this subdivision, the certificate required by this section shall be filed within ninety days after service of the complaint." The sanction of dismissal is not authorized by the statute. In the event of a plaintiffs' noncompliance, the appropriate course is to request a conditional order compelling compliance, which can result in dismissal of the action at the discretion of the court, pursuant to CPLR 3126[3].
Fortune v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., NY Slip Op 01122 (1st Dep't February 18, 2021)
As there are conflicting expert opinions, defendant's summary judgment motion as to plaintiff's claim relating to postsurgical care was properly denied. Since plaintiff's expert, in opposition to defendant's motion, did not address the claims for lack of informed consent and malpractice during surgery, and plaintiff does not pursue those claims on appeal, they are dismissed.
John v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., NY Slip Op 01123 (1st Dep't February 18, 2021)
On a motion to dismiss an affirmative defense, a plaintiff bears the heavy burden of showing that, as a matter of law, the defense is without merit. The allegations in the answer must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, and the defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment of the pleading, which is to be construed liberally.
Alpha Capital Anstalt v. General Biotechnology Corp., NY Slip Op 00985 (1st Dep't February 16, 2021)
The complaint fails to state a cause of action for tortious interference with contract, as plaintiffs have not alleged that they were parties to a contract with a third party with which defendant interfered. Neither do plaintiffs state a prima facie claim for tortious interference with business relations or economic advantage, as the essence of the cause of action involves actions directed not at plaintiffs but at third parties. Here, the alleged threats and misrepresentations were directed at plaintiffs themselves, and not at any third party.
Underwood v. Urban Homesteading Assistance (U-HAB), Inc., NY Slip Op 01020 (1st Dep't February 16, 2021)
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, on the law, the Order which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, reinstated the complaint, and remanded the matter for a determination of the motion on the merits. The motion was timely since it was filed within the time period provided in the preliminary conference order. That deadline is controlling, despite the transfer to another Justice with part rules shortening the time, as there was no subsequent order or directive explicitly providing otherwise.
Lopez v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 00910 (1st Dep't February 11, 2021)
Plaintiff's fraud in the factum argument involves issues of fact, and, therefore, may not be raised for the first time on appeal.
Shilpa Saketh Realty, Inc. v. Vidiyala, NY Slip Op 00917 (1st Dep't February 11, 2021)
In these insurance coverage actions, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, with costs, the motion court's exercise of its broad discretion in denying the insurers' motions to compel discovery of the NFL's defense and settlement materials from the underlying action. The cooperation clauses in the insurance policies did not operate as waivers of the NFL's attorney-client and work-product privileges. Neither was there a waiver of the attorney-client privilege merely because the parties had a common interest in the outcome of the underlying actions. Nor did the NFL, by seeking coverage, put its privileged and protected information at issue.
Alterra Am. Ins. Co. v. National Football League, NY Slip Op 00900 (1st Dep't February 11, 2021)
Plaintiff's assertion that the voluntary payment doctrine, equitable estoppel, and waiver bar the accounting is improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Cordero, NY Slip Op 00819 (1st Dep't February 9, 2021)
