Practice point: In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting deposition testimony, hospital records, and the affirmation of their medical expert establishing that at all times they acted under the direction and supervision of the attending physicians, and that they lacked the authority to independently order tests and medication. Their physically examining plaintiff and participating in her diagnosis and discharge from care did not demonstrate the exercise of independent medical judgment. In addition, the defendants demonstrated that the diagnosis and treatment plan implemented and continued under the supervision of the attending physicians did not include orders so clearly contraindicated by normal practice that ordinary prudence required inquiry into the correctness of those orders.
Student note: The Appellate Division determined that the motion court properly rejected the redacted and unsigned affirmation of the plaintiff's medical expert where the plaintiff offered no explanation for the failure to identify the expert by name or the failure to offer an unredacted affirmation for in camera review. Therefore, that affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendants' alleged malpractice.
Case: France v. Packy, NY Slip Op 06939 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Denial of a motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum.
October 23, 2014
October 22, 2014
A premature summary judgment motion.
Practice point: The plaintiff sued for injuries allegedly sustained when she tripped
and fell as a result of an alleged defect on a curb near a catch
basin/sewer in the defendant-Town. The Town moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it did not own
the roadway and, therefore, had no duty to maintain the curb. In
opposition, the plaintiff contended that Highway
Law § 12(5) imposes a duty upon a town to maintain curbs on state-owned
highways that have been widened by the town, and to the Town's motion was
premature inasmuch as the Town failed to provide disclosure as to
whether it had widened the subject roadway.
The Appellate Division determined that, in opposing the motion, the plaintiff demonstrated that the Town failed to disclose whether it widened the subject roadway at the location of the occurrence, a fact exclusively within the knowledge and control of the Town. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied as premature the Town's motion, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.
Student note: A party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature is required to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant, pursuant to CPLR 3212[f].
Case: Buto v. Town of Smithtown, NY Slip Op 06934 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Summary judgment for medical residents acting under the direction of the attending physicians.
The Appellate Division determined that, in opposing the motion, the plaintiff demonstrated that the Town failed to disclose whether it widened the subject roadway at the location of the occurrence, a fact exclusively within the knowledge and control of the Town. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied as premature the Town's motion, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.
Student note: A party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature is required to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant, pursuant to CPLR 3212[f].
Case: Buto v. Town of Smithtown, NY Slip Op 06934 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Summary judgment for medical residents acting under the direction of the attending physicians.
October 21, 2014
Dismissal of a conversion claim.
Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal on the alternative ground that the allegations in
the complaint were inadequate to state a cause of action to recover
damages for conversion, pursuant to CPLR 3211[a][7]. In pleading conversion, the plaintiff must allege legal ownership or an immediate right of possession to
specifically identifiable funds and that the defendant exercised an
unauthorized dominion over such funds to the exclusion of the
plaintiff's rights.The mere right to payment cannot be the basis for the claim since the essence of a conversion
cause of action is the unauthorized dominion over the thing in
question.
Student note: To make a claim for conversion, tangible personal property or specific money must be involved.
Case: Barker v. Amorini, NY Slip Op 06931 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A premature summary judgment motion.
Student note: To make a claim for conversion, tangible personal property or specific money must be involved.
Case: Barker v. Amorini, NY Slip Op 06931 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A premature summary judgment motion.
October 20, 2014
Summary judgment in a snow or ice case.
Practice point: In this action for injuries allegedly sustained in plaintiff's sidewalk fall, the Appellate Division reversed the motion court's granting summary judgment to the City, and reinstated the complaint. Plaintiff testified
at deposition that the area where she fell was "dirty" with "snow
layers on top of layers," which she later clarified to mean "slushy ice"
that was "clean, like slippery, flat" and had a little snow on top of
it. In opposition to the City's motion, plaintiff
submitted an affidavit in which she explained that she fell on a patch
of snow and ice that was about two feet wide by three feet long, and
that the patch of snow and ice was "one (1) inch thick, flat, hard, and
dirty, as if it had existed for several days."
The Appellate Division determined that this deposition testimony and affidavit, taken together, cannot reasonably be construed as being inconsistent or feigned. Inconsistencies, if any, as to how plaintiff described the patch of snow and ice on which she slipped simply create a triable issue of fact. In addition, the Appellate Division cited precedent for the proposition that, contrary to the City's argument, snow and ice left on a sidewalk after a storm can constitute an "unusual and dangerous condition."
Student note: Once there is a period of inactivity after the storm ceases, it is a question of fact as to whether any delay in commencing the cleanup was reasonable. Here, it is for the jury to decide whether the ice on which plaintiff slipped was formed four days before the accident, as plaintiff contends, and whether that four-day gap was a sufficient period of time for the City to remedy the condition.
Case: Rodriguez v. Woods, NY Slip Op 06887 (1st Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Dismissal of a conversion claim.
The Appellate Division determined that this deposition testimony and affidavit, taken together, cannot reasonably be construed as being inconsistent or feigned. Inconsistencies, if any, as to how plaintiff described the patch of snow and ice on which she slipped simply create a triable issue of fact. In addition, the Appellate Division cited precedent for the proposition that, contrary to the City's argument, snow and ice left on a sidewalk after a storm can constitute an "unusual and dangerous condition."
Student note: Once there is a period of inactivity after the storm ceases, it is a question of fact as to whether any delay in commencing the cleanup was reasonable. Here, it is for the jury to decide whether the ice on which plaintiff slipped was formed four days before the accident, as plaintiff contends, and whether that four-day gap was a sufficient period of time for the City to remedy the condition.
Case: Rodriguez v. Woods, NY Slip Op 06887 (1st Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Dismissal of a conversion claim.
October 17, 2014
Summary judgment in a medical malpractice action.
Practice point: To establish the physician's liability for medical malpractice, a
plaintiff must prove that the physician deviated or departed from
accepted community standards of practice, and that such departure was a
proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Accordingly, a physician moving for summary judgment dismissing a
complaint alleging medical malpractice must establish, prima facie,
either that there was no departure, or that any departure was not a
proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. If the defendant-physician makes the requisite showing, the burden
shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue
of fact, but only as to the elements on which the defendant met the
prima facie burden.
Student note: Summary judgment is not appropriate where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions, as they necessarily raise credibility issues which can only be resolved by a jury.
Case : Berthen v. Bania, NY Slip Op 06789 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Summary judgment in a snow or ice case.
Student note: Summary judgment is not appropriate where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions, as they necessarily raise credibility issues which can only be resolved by a jury.
Case : Berthen v. Bania, NY Slip Op 06789 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Summary judgment in a snow or ice case.
October 16, 2014
A shareholder may not recover individually for wrongs against the corporation.
Practice point: The defendants established their prima facie
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that
all of the plaintiff's losses arose from his status as a shareholder of a nonparty corporation. A shareholder, even in a
closely-held corporation, may not recover in his or her individual
capacity for wrongs against the corporation. The evidence established, prima facie, that the moving defendants were not
liable to the plaintiff for any of the relief sought, and that the
plaintiff's claims should have been brought on behalf of the nonparty
corporation in a derivative action.
Student note: The appeals from the two intermediate orders were dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action. The issues raised on the appeals from those orders were brought up for review and were considered on the appeal from the judgment, pursuant to CPLR 5501[a][1].
Case: Barbaro v, Spinelli, NY Slip Op 06786 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Summary judgment in a medical malpractice action.
Student note: The appeals from the two intermediate orders were dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action. The issues raised on the appeals from those orders were brought up for review and were considered on the appeal from the judgment, pursuant to CPLR 5501[a][1].
Case: Barbaro v, Spinelli, NY Slip Op 06786 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Summary judgment in a medical malpractice action.
October 15, 2014
An allegedly loose handrail, and defnedant's summary judgment motion is denied.
Practice point: The Appellate Division reversed the motion court's granting defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was allegedly injured when she fell down a flight of stairs in
defendant's apartment building. She alleges that the accident was
caused by a loose handrail that she was holding while descending the
stairs. The handrail's looseness was confirmed by the deposition testimony of
defendant's superintendent who checked it shortly after plaintiff was
injured. Defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden of establishing a
lack of notice of the defect inasmuch as it offered no testimony as to
when the admittedly loose handrail was last inspected or repaired.
Student note: The Appellate Division expressly rejected plaintiff's alternative theory that the allegedly worn marble tread on the stairway constituted an actionable defective condition.
Case: DiPini v. 381 E. 160 Equities LLC, NY Slip Op 06868 (1st Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A shareholder may not recover individually for wrongs against the corporation
Student note: The Appellate Division expressly rejected plaintiff's alternative theory that the allegedly worn marble tread on the stairway constituted an actionable defective condition.
Case: DiPini v. 381 E. 160 Equities LLC, NY Slip Op 06868 (1st Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A shareholder may not recover individually for wrongs against the corporation
October 14, 2014
Lien law, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.
Practice point: Lien Law § 11 provides that within 5 days before or 30 days after
filing the notice of lien, a lienor "shall" serve a copy of such notice
upon the owner, as relevant here, at the owner's "last known place of
residence." Here, the plaintiff's affidavit of service of the
mechanic's lien demonstrates that the plaintiff failed to serve the
notice in compliance with Lien Law § 11, as the
notice was not sent to the defendants' last known place of residence. As
strict compliance with the statutory requirements is mandated, the Appellate Division determined that the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the
defendants' motion which was pursuant to Lien Law § 11 to dismiss the
sixth cause of action, which was to foreclose a mechanic's lien.
Student note: Where, as here, there is a dispute as to whether there is a contract, the plaintiff may allege causes of action to recover for unjust enrichment and in quantum meruit as alternatives to a cause of action alleging breach of contract, pursuant to CPLR 3014.
Case: Thompson Bros. Pile Corp. v Rosenblum, NY Slip Op 06577 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomrorrow's issue: An allegedly loose handrail, and defendant's summary judgment motion is denied.
Student note: Where, as here, there is a dispute as to whether there is a contract, the plaintiff may allege causes of action to recover for unjust enrichment and in quantum meruit as alternatives to a cause of action alleging breach of contract, pursuant to CPLR 3014.
Case: Thompson Bros. Pile Corp. v Rosenblum, NY Slip Op 06577 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomrorrow's issue: An allegedly loose handrail, and defendant's summary judgment motion is denied.
October 13, 2014
Court holiday.
The courts are closed to mark Columbus Day.
Tomorrow's issue: Lien law, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.
Tomorrow's issue: Lien law, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.
October 10, 2014
Motion to vacate raising a jurisdictional objection and, alternatively, seeking a discretionary vacatur.
Practice point: When a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment raises both a
jurisdictional objection, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4), and, alternatively,
seeks a discretionary vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the court must resolve the jurisdictional question before determining
whether it is appropriate to grant a discretionary vacatur. Here, the process server's affidavit constituted
prima facie evidence of proper service, pursuant to CPLR 308(4) . In her affidavit in support of her motion, the defendant
did not deny that she was served with process and did not swear to
specific facts to rebut the process server's affidavit.
The defendant was not entitled to relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), as she failed to set forth any reasonable excuse for her default, since the only excuse proffered was that she had no recollection of being served with process.
Student note: As to the jurisdictional question, since the defendant did not rebut the process server's affidavit, a hearing was not necessary. As to the discretionary vacatur, in the absence of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to determine whether the defendant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense.
Case: Servpro Indus., Inc. v. Anghel, NY Slip Op 06572 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tuesday's issue: Lien law, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.
The defendant was not entitled to relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), as she failed to set forth any reasonable excuse for her default, since the only excuse proffered was that she had no recollection of being served with process.
Student note: As to the jurisdictional question, since the defendant did not rebut the process server's affidavit, a hearing was not necessary. As to the discretionary vacatur, in the absence of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to determine whether the defendant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense.
Case: Servpro Indus., Inc. v. Anghel, NY Slip Op 06572 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tuesday's issue: Lien law, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.
October 9, 2014
Denial of a petition to file a late notice of claim.
Practice point: The Appellate Division reversed the motion court, and denied the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim and dismissed the complaint. Even if the mistaken identification of the municipal agency were an excusable error, the petitioner failed to proffer any excuse for the additional delay of more than seven months between the time that he discovered the error and the filing of his petition. In addition, the City did not acquire timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioner's claim. The petitioner contends that the City acquired such knowledge by virtue of a police accident report made by a police officer at the accident scene. However, for a report to provide actual knowledge of the essential facts, one must be able to readily infer from that report that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the public corporation. Here, the report did not provide the City with actual notice of the essential facts constituting the petitioner's claim that the City was negligent in the happening of the subject accident, or that the petitioner sustained any injuries as a result of the City's alleged negligence. Finally, the petitioner failed to rebut the City's assertion that the overall 10-month delay in commencing the proceeding deprived it of the opportunity to find witnesses promptly, or otherwise conduct a timely and meaningful investigation.
Student note: In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter; (2) the claimant made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation; (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense; and (4) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e[5].
Case: Kuterman v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 06560 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion to vacate raising a jurisdictional objection and, alternatively, seeking a discretionary vacatur.
Student note: In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter; (2) the claimant made an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation; (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense; and (4) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e[5].
Case: Kuterman v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 06560 (2d Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Motion to vacate raising a jurisdictional objection and, alternatively, seeking a discretionary vacatur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)