Court holiday.

Suspension of snow removal servces for failure to pay maintenance fees.

The plaintiff alleges that while he was working for nonparty UPS and delivering a package to the home of the defendant Sorrentino, he was injured when he slipped and fell on snow and ice in defendant's driveway. At the time of the accident, Sorrentino lived in a gated community governed by the defendant Stone Hill.  Prior to the time of the accident, Stone Hill had suspended Sorrentino's snow removal services for the property, as a result of the nonpayment of maintenance fees to Stone Hill. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against Sorrentino and Stone Hill to recover damages for personal injuries. Stone Hill moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and Sorrentino's cross claim. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the Appellate Division reversed.

Stone Hill failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that Sorrentino's nonpayment of the maintenance fees relieved it of its duty to perform snow removal services on the property on the date of the accident, as was its responsibility under the "Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, Easements, Charges and Liens," which governed the relationship between Sorrentino, as a property owner, and Stone Hill.

Student note:  Since Stone Hill failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff or Sorrentino to raise a triable issue of fact.

Case:  Coons v. Sorrentino, NY Slip Op 08501 (2d Dep't December 21, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tuesday's issue:  The presumption of proper service.

A defendant's summary judgment motion in a trip-and-fall action.

Practice point:  The movant may establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that (1) it neither created the hazardous condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff's injuries, nor had actual or constructive notice of that condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it, or (2) plaintiff cannot identify the cause of the accident. Here, the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff was unaware of the location of his fall or what caused him to fall. In support of their motion, the defendants submitted a transcript of the plaintiff's deposition. In that deposition, the plaintiff clearly identified, through photographs, the location of his fall and the condition that allegedly caused it. Any conflicts between the plaintiff's original deposition and the errata sheets raised issues of credibility inappropriate for resolution on summary judgment.

Student note:  As the defendants' failed to meet their prima facie burden, their motion will be denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's papers in opposition.

Case:  Belton v. Gemstone HQ Realty Assoc., LLC, NY Slip Op 08491 (2d Dep't December 21, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Suspension of snow removal services for failure to pay maintenance fees.

CPLR 3212(f).

Practice point:  The statute permits a court to deny a motion for summary judgment where it appears that the facts essential to oppose the motion exist but cannot then be stated. This is especially so where the opposing party has not had a reasonable opportunity for disclosure.

Case:  Brielmeier v. Leal, NY Slip Op 08344 (2d Dep't December 14, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: A defendant's summary judgment motion in a trip-and-fall action.

Termination of an action within the meaning of CPLR 203(e), and punitive damages.

CPLR 203(e), in pertinent part, states that "[w]here a defendant has served an answer containing a defense or counterclaim and the action is terminated . . . by dismissal . . . , the time which elapsed between the commencement and termination of the action is not a part of the time within which an action must be commenced to recover upon the claim in the defense or counterclaim."

For statutory purposes, a prior action terminates when a nondiscretionary appeal, or an appeal taken as of right, is exhausted.

A demand for punitive damages will be struck where the action involves a private dispute, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that defendants' conduct was aimed at the public generally.

Case: Britt v. Nestor, NY Slip Op 08437 (1st Dep't December 15, 2017)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  CPLR 3212(f).

Court holiday.

Wheel stops and liabiity.

While a landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner, there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is not inherently dangerous. As a matter of law, a clearly visible wheel stop or concrete parking lot divider presents no unreasonable risk of harm,

Case:  Bogaty v. Bluestone Realty NY, Inc., NY Slip Op 08343 (2d Dep't December 14, 2916)

Here is the decision.

Tuesday's issue:  Termination of an action within the meaning of CPLR 203(e), and punitive damages.

A request for an adjournment of the return date and for an extension of time to file an opposition

The granting of an adjournment for any purpose rests within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion. In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the court must engage in a balanced consideration of numerous relevant factors. It is not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny an adjournment where the need for such a request is based on the movant's failure to exercise due diligence. In addition, while a court has the discretion to grant an extension of time to file opposition papers, it must be upon a showing of good cause, pursuant to CPLR 2004, and the delinquent party must offer a valid excuse for the delay.

Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiffs' request for the adjournment and extension.  They made no showing of good cause because they did not offer a valid excuse for the extension, and the record reflected that the need for an adjournment resulted from a lack of due diligence on their part.

Case:  Adotey v. British Airways, PLC, NY Slip Op 08341 (2d Dep't December 14, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Wheel stops and liability.

The relaton back doctrine.

The Appellate Division reversed the motion court and dismissed the complaint in this action stemming from a personal injury action that settled.  After the statute of limitations had elapsed, pursuant to CPLR 214(5), plaintiff filed this action.

Plaintiff's reliance on the relation back doctrine to render this independent action timely is unavailing, since he is not seeking to amend a pleading in a timely-commenced action, pursuant to CPLR 203[f].

Plaintiff would have the complaint relate back to the date of a complaint filed against him in a prior action or, alternatively, to the date of his answer in that prior action, which did not itself assert any counterclaims.  There is no authority supporting such an expansion of the relation back doctrine.

Case:  Davis v. Sanseverino, NY Slip Op 08321 (1st Dep't December 13, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A request for an adjournment of the return date and for an extension of time to file an opposition.

A property owner's liability under Labor Law § 240(1).

In determining an owner's statutory liability, the issue of whether plaintiff was employed by some other entity is of no import, as long as it is undisputed that plaintiff, on the day of the accident, was allowed to work on the premises. The owner is liable for a statutory breach even if the owner did not supervise or control the work being performed, and despite the fact that the injured person injured was an independent contractor engaged to do the work.

Case:  Vera v. Low Income Mktg. Corp., NY Slip Op 08318 (1st Dep't December 13, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  The relation back doctrine.

Dismissal of claims pursuant to CPLR 3215(c).

Practice point:  The defendant did not waive the right to seek dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) by moving to vacate the default and for leave to serve a late answer. A defendant may waive the right to seek a dismissal by serving an answer or taking any other steps that may be seen as a formal or informal appearance. However, a CPLR 3012(c) motion for leave to serve an untimely answer does not constitute either a formal appearance, pursuant to CPLR 320, or an informal appearance, pursuant to CPLR 3012(d).

Case:  HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Grella, NY Slip Op 08199 (2d Dep't December 7, 2016)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A property owner's liability under Labor Law § 240(1).