Applicability of the relation-back doctrine.

Application of the doctrine is proper where, as here, a new action has been commenced and consolidated with a prior action. Its application is not limited to those instances where the plaintiff is seeking an amendment of the complaint in the original action. The doctrine may be applied if the party was identified in the prior action but not made a party to that action owing to the plaintiff's failure to comply with the technical requirements for commencing an action.

Picchioni v. Sabur, NY Slip Op 04362 (1st Dep't September 5, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Statutory interpretation.

When presented with a question of statutory interpretation, the court's primary consideration is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature. Since the clearest indicator of legislative intent is the statutory text, the starting point in any case of interpretation must always be the language itself, giving effect to the plain meaning thereof. Further, a statute must be construed as a whole, and its various sections must be considered together and with reference to each other.

Matter of Winter v. Luft, NY Slip Op 04364 (2d Dep't September 6, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

Unambiguous terms of an agreement between sophisticated parties must be enforced pursuant to their plain meaning. unless it would produce a result that is absurd, commercially unreasonable, or contrary to the reasonable expectations of the parties.

GCA Advisors, LLC v. Intersections, Inc., NY Slip Op 04359 (1st Dep't September 5, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Discovery disputes.

The resolution of discovery disputes and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 is left to the sound discretion of the motion court. Actions should be resolved on their merits whenever possible, and the drastic remedy of striking a pleading or the alternative remedy of precluding evidence should not be employed without a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious.

Edwards v. Freedom Church of Revelation, NY Slip Op 04305 (2d Dep't August 28, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Foreclosing a mortgage.

In moving for summary judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff establishes its prima facie case through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default. The plaintiff has the burden of establishing, by proof in admissible form, its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff can establish a default by submitting an affidavit from a person having personal knowledge of the facts or other evidence in admissible form. The business record exception to the hearsay rule applies to a writing or record, pursuant to CPLR 4518[a], and it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted. Without the introduction of the records themselves, a witness's testimony as to the contents of the records is inadmissible hearsay.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Pirozzi, NY Slip Op 04304 (2d Dep't August 28, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Finding a pharmacy negligent.

When a pharmacist has demonstrated that he did not undertake to exercise any independent professional judgment in filling and dispensing prescription medication, the pharmacist cannot be held liable for negligence in the absence of evidence that failed to fill the prescription precisely as directed by the prescribing physician or that the prescription was so clearly contraindicated that ordinary prudence required the pharmacist to take additional measures before dispensing the medication. Here, the complaint does not allege that the pharmacy exercised independent professional judgment or that it did not fill the prescriptions as directed. Nevertheless, accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the complaint sufficiently alleges that the prescriptions were so clearly contraindicated that ordinary prudence required the pharmacy to take additional measures before dispensing the medication. The motion to dismiss is denied.

Bistrian v. Gibson, NY Slip Op 04303 (2d Dep't August 28, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Unsworn submissions.

The unsworn expert report submitted by the defendant in support of his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was insufficient to meet his prima facie burden, pursuant to CPLR 2106 and 3212[b].

Beier v. Giglio, NY Slip Op 04302 (2d Dep't August 28, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Premises liability.

Property owners have a common-law duty to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition, but there is no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. A condition is open and obvious if it is readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, given the conditions at the time of the accident. However, a condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted.

Beier v. Giglio, NY Slip Op 04302 (2d Dep't August 28, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Federal preemption.

Federal preemption is based on the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The issue of federal preemption is a question of law,  since it concerns whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation, Congress has enacted a law for which a particular state rule is to the contrary. The inquiry into the scope of a statute's preemptive effect is guided by the rule that the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone in every preemption case. If the statute at issue contains an express preemption clause, the task of statutory construction must, in the first instance, focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress's preemptive intent.

Malerba v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 04344 (1st Dep't August 29, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Recovery in tort against a municipality.

Persons seeking to recover in tort against a municipality are required, as a precondition to suit, to serve a Notice of Claim within 90 days after the claim arises. Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), the notice must set forth the nature of the claim, and the time, place, and manner in which the claim arose. The test of the sufficiency of a notice of claim is whether it includes information sufficient to enable the public entity to locate the place, fix the time, and understand the nature of the accident. Claims of roadway, sidewalk, or similar defects must be set forth with great specificity because of their transitory nature.   A court determining a motion to dismiss a complaint on the ground that the notice of claim is insufficient must examine the four corners of the notice, and may consider the testimony provided during an examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, as well as any other evidence properly before the court. However, this evidence cannot be used to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability, since causes of action or legal theories may not be raised in the complaint or in a bill of particulars that were not directly or indirectly mentioned in the notice of claim and that change the nature of the claim or assert a new one.

Behrens v. Town of Huntington, NY Slip Op 04301 (2d Dep't August 28, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Commencing a foreclosure action.

Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 providing notice to the borrower is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action.  Pursuant to the statute, notice must be sent "by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower, and to the residence that is the subject of the mortgage." A plaintiff demonstrates statutory compliance by submitting proof of the actual mailings or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Sach, NY Sli[p Op 04300 (2d Dep't August 28, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Premises liability.

In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the allegedly dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence. In order to meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell.  Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice. However, in order to constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant's employees to discover and remedy it. When a defect is latent and would not be discoverable upon a reasonable inspection, constructive notice may not be imputed.

K. B. v. City of Mount Vernon, NY Slip Op 04299 (2d Dep't August 28, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Equitable distribution of marital property.

A trial court is vested with broad discretion in making an equitable distribution of marital property, and, unless it is shown that the court improvidently exercised that discretion, its determination should not be disturbed on appeal. Equitable distribution is based on the premise that a marriage is, among other things, an economic partnership to which both parties contribute as spouse, parent, wage earner, or homemaker. The distribution of marital assets depends not only on the financial contribution of the parties but also on a wide range of non-remunerated things such as homemaking, raising children, and the providing of the emotional and moral support necessary to sustain the other spouse in coping with matters outside the home.

Albano v. Albano, NY Slip Op 04298 (2d Dep't August 28, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Evidentiary rulings.

Trial courts are accorded wide discretion in making evidentiary rulings, and those rulings should not be disturbed on appeal absent an improvident exercise of discretion or a showing of prejudice to a substantial right, pursuant to CPLR 2002.

6 Harbor Park Dr., LLC v. Town of N. Hempstead, NY Slip Op 04297 (2d Dep't August 28, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Running a light.

A driver who enters an intersection against a red traffic light in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110(a) is negligent as a matter of law. Here, the plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting a transcript of his deposition testimony, which demonstrated that he proceeded through the intersection with a green traffic light and that the defendant's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, as the defendant entered the intersection against a red traffic light. In opposition, however, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact by submitting a transcript of his deposition testimony, wherein he averred that when he entered the intersection, the traffic light was green in his favor, and further averred that he stopped fully before the plaintiff's vehicle struck the defendant's vehicle.  The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.

Degachi v Faridi, NY Slip Op 04241 (2d Dep't August 21, 2024)

Here is the decision.