CPLR 3012(b)

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal for failure to serve a complaint after a demand for the complaint has been made pursuant to CPLR 3012(b).  The plaintiff was no longer acting in a pro se capacity when the defendants uploaded the notice of appearance and demand to the NYSCEF system. The plaintiff's purported reasonable excuse that the failure to serve the complaint was a "technical glitch" of the NYSCEF system is unavailing. The defendants' notice of appearance and demand remained in the e-filing system for over one year, during which time the plaintiff was represented by counsel, before the plaintiff served a proposed complaint on them. The Appellate Division determined that this is not a mere technical glitch, but law office failure, which has been held not to constitute a reasonable excuse under CPLR 3012(b).

Student note:  To avoid dismissal of the action for failure to serve a complaint after a demand for the complaint has been made pursuant to CPLR 3012(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a potentially meritorious cause of action.

Case:  Carducci v. Russell, NY Slip Op 06290 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: The Labor Law § 740(7) election of remedies provision in a retaliation action.

Issues of fact as to constructive notice.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division reversed the motion court's granting of defendants' summary judgment motion in this personal injury action, finding triable issues of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the defective condition of the window which allegedly fell on plaintiff's hands. Defendants were aware of problems with the building's windows staying in an upright position, based on the replacement of balances on a number of plaintiff's own windows, including the window in question, and on many others throughout the building.

Student note:  The Appellate Division expressly rejected defendants' argument that they were not required to conduct periodic tests of the window balances. Once they knew that an appreciable number of the windows in the building required attention, they had an obligation to inspect all of them.

Case:  Hermina v. 2050 Valentine Ave., LLC, NY Slip Op 06367 (1st Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: CPLR 3012(b)

Summary judgment as to liability in an action involving a pedestrian struck by an automobile.

Practice point:  The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he was struck by a vehicle owned by the defendant-florist. The plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by presenting proof that the injured plaintiff was walking within an unmarked crosswalk and that he looked for approaching traffic before he began to cross.
 

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. A transcript of an alleged telephone conversation that a nonparty witness had with the defendants' insurer, which is not authenticated, certified, or sworn, was inadmissible and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Additionally, the driver-defendant's affidavit did not raise a triable issue of fact as it consisted of unsupported speculation that the injured plaintiff was comparatively negligent.

Student note:  That branch of the plaintiffs' motion which sought summary judgment on the issue of liability was not premature, since the florist-defendants failed to offer an evidentiary basis to show that discovery may lead to relevant evidence and that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff.

Case:  Garcia v. Lenox Hill Florist III, Inc, NY Slip Op 06171 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Issues of fact as to constructive notice.

Property possessor's liability for a third-person's criminal acts.

Practice point:  A possessor of real property is under a duty to maintain reasonable security measures to protect those lawfully on the premises from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. Here, the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they took reasonable security measures against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties.

Student note:  A defendant cannot satisfy its initial burden merely by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's case.

Case:  Deinzer v. Middle Country Pub. Lib, NY Slip Op 06169 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue: Summary judgment as to liability in an action involving a pedestrian struck by an automobile.

Summary judgment in a legal malpractice action.

Practice point:  To recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove the existence of an attorney-client relationship. In addition, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages.

Student note:  To succeed on a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant must present evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one essential element of his or her cause of action alleging legal malpractice

Case:  Biberaj v. Acocella, NY Slip Op 06165 (2d Dept. 2014).

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Property possessor's liability for a third-person's criminal acts.

Documentary evidence in spport of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion.

Practice point:  In order for evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as documentary evidence, it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable.  While judicial records and documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, and contracts qualify as documentary evidence, affidavits, deposition testimony, and letters do not.

Student note:  A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss a complaint on the ground that a defense is founded on documentary evidence will be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law. The evidence submitted in support of such motion must be documentary or the motion must be denied.

Case:  Attias v. Costiera, NY Slip Op 06163 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Summary judgment in a legal malpractice action.

Denial of a motion to file a late notice of claim.

Practice point:  The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion and the dismissal of this medical malpractice action in which the infant plaintiff sought to recover for injuries he suffered after being born at 27 weeks' gestation. The Appellate Division found that the motion court considered the pertinent statutory factors and properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e[5].

The Appellate Division found that the infant plaintiff's mother's excuses that she was unfamiliar with the requirement that she file a notice of claim, and that she was unaware that her son's injuries were caused by defendant's malpractice, are not reasonable. Nor is her attorney's assertion that he waited to make the motion until nearly four years after filing the untimely notice of claim because he needed to receive the medical records from the defendant.

In addition, the medical records demonstrate that the infant plaintiff's condition and prognosis are consistent with his premature birth, and do not suggest any injury attributable to the hospital staff's malpractice. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the medical records put defendant on notice that the alleged malpractice would subsequently give rise to brain damage as a result of birth trauma and hypoxia, or that he would
subsequently develop other deficits, delays, and disorders.

Student note: As to the relevance of the plaintiff's infancy, the Appellate Division said that it "carries little weight" as there is not connection between that infancy and the delay in moving for leave to file.

Case:  Wally G. v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Metropolitan Hospital), NY Slip Op 06241 (1st Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Documentary evidence in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion.

An alleged abandonment of a claim for the award of attorney's fees.

Practice point:  22 NYCRR 202.48, "Submission of orders, judgments and decrees for signature," states, in pertinent part, as follows:

:"(a) Proposed orders or judgments, with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted. "(b) Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown."

Here, the Supreme Court's direction that the defendants submit a proposed order with respect to an award of an attorney's fee did not specify that the order be settled or submitted on notice. Therefore, the plaintiff's contention that the defendants abandoned their claim for an award of the fee by failing to comply with the 60-day rule is unavailing.

Student note: In determining reasonable compensation for an attorney, the court must consider such factors as the time, effort, and skill required; the difficulty of the questions presented; counsel's experience, ability, and reputation; the fee customarily charged in the locality; and the contingency or certainty of compensation.

Case:  47 Thames Realty, LLC v. Robinson, NY Slip Op 06051 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Denial of a motion to file a late notice of claim.

A late motion for leave to amend.

Practice point:  Although the plaintiff delayed in making the motion for leave to amend, mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment; lateness is only a barrier if it is coupled with significant prejudice to the other side.

Student note:  Leave to amend a pleading is freely given absent prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit.

Case:  Ciminello v. Sullivan, NY Slip Op 06048 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Monday's issue: An alleged abandonment of a claim for the award of attorney's fees.

A rear-end collision.

Practice point:  A rear-end collision establishes, prima facie, negligence on the part of the rear vehicle's driver, regardless of whether the lead vehicle was stopped or stopping.. That driver, then, must rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision. A bare allegation that the lead vehicle stopped short is insufficient to rebut the inference.

Student note:  Where the movant has established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the opposing party to provide sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to the moving party's comparative fault.

Case:  Billis v Tunjian, NY Slip Op 06044 (2d Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow' issue: A late motion for leave to amend.

The enforceability of an on-the-record stipulation.

Practice point:  In this divorce action the Appellate Division affirmed the finding that the parties' on-the-record agreement was too incomplete and indefinite to be enforceable, and was merely a non-binding agreement to agree.  The parties disagreed as to whether the proposal included a waiver of maintenance, and they did not finalize the details of the transfer of a trust. Other material terms were never agreed to, and the agreement was subject to the consummation of future conditions and additional agreements.

Student note: To be enforceable, an open court stipulation must contain all of the material terms and
evince a clear mutual accord between the parties, pursuant to CPLR 2104;

Case:  Cohen v. Cohen, NY Slip Op 06157 (1st Dept. 2014)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: A rear-end collision.