Defendants’ motion to change venue was untimely as to improper venue and was unwarranted as to the inconvenience of witnesses.

There were two grounds to defendants’ objection to the venue of the action: first, that the county was improper (“improper venue”) and second, that the witnesses were inconvenienced by the county plaintiff had chosen (“inconvenient venue”). Defendants’ motion as to the first ground (improper venue) was late and as to the second (inconvenient venue) was unwarranted.

Timing of motion re improper venue. Where defendant objects to the county in which plaintiff has commenced suit (under CPLR 510(1), defendant must serve a demand for change of venue on or before the date the answer is served. CPLR 511(a). Unless plaintiff consents to the transfer of venue within five days of defendant’s demand, defendant must move within 15 days from the date of filing his demand for change of venue to the proper county. CPLR 511(b); Alexander, Practice Commentary C511:2 Motion to Transfer Based on Improper Venue: “Demand Procedure” (Main Commentary, McKinney’s).

Here, defendants met the first deadline by electronically filing their demand for change of venue with their answer on July 14, 2015. In so doing, defendants consented to electronic filing, which thereafter required defendants to electronically file and serve all documents that were thereafter required to be filed with the court. 22 NYCRR 202.5-b(d) (1)(i).

Defendants, however, missed the second deadline by two days: seventeen days after electronically filing and serving their demand for a change of venue, defendants served by U.S. mail their motion to change venue. Defendants attempted to argue that CPLR 2103(b)(2) (which gives an extra five days for service by mail when a prescribed period of time is measured from the service of paper and service is mailed) added an extra five days to the fifteen-day time limit. The First Department rejected that argument holding that because defendants had already consented to electronic service and filing, they were bound by the time limits applicable to electronic filling and could not avail themselves of the extension of time for mailing.
Inconvenience of witnesses. CPLR 510 sets forth two additional grounds for change of venue: inability to obtain an impartial trail (CPLR 510(2)) and inconvenience of witnesses (CPLR 510(3)). These two grounds are “discretionary” grounds. Alexander, Practice Commentary C510:1 Motions for Change of Venue, In General (Main Commentary, McKinney’s). These defendants also argued that the venue was inconvenient for their witnesses.
The First Department held without elaboration that defendants failed to show that a change of venue was warranted due to the inconvenience of material witnesses because their motion papers did not address the factors enumerated in Cardona v Aggressive Heating, 180 AD2d 572 (1st Dep’t 1992). [Cardona requires that the movant provide (1) the identity of the proposed witnesses, (2) the manner in which they will be inconvenienced by a trial in the county in which the action was commenced, (3) that the witnesses have been contacted and are available and willing to testify for the movant, (4) the nature of the anticipated testimony, and (5) the manner in which the anticipated testimony is material to the issues raised in the case.]
Woodward v Millbrook Ventures LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 02522 (1st Dep’t Mar. 30, 2017) http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_02522.htm

Res ipso loquitur did not apply in an escalator case where there was no objective evidence of malfunctioning

Res ipso loquitur did not apply in an escalator case where there was no objective evidence of malfunctioning (plaintiff misstepped onto the escalator and there was no proof of malfunction), but did apply in an elevator case where the elevator unexplainedly stopped suddenly and abruptly.

Summary judgment was affirmed to Macy’s and to its independent escalator servicing company because neither defendant had any notice of the alleged escalator defect either before or after the incident, and because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply.

The store’s manager and the escalator company’s mechanic both testified that they received no reports of the escalator’s shaking or stopping and starting before or after the date of plaintiff’s accident.  Nor did anyone, including plaintiff, before or after her accident, observe the escalators stop and start several times in succession, as plaintiff claimed occurred when she fell.  There was evidence, however, that plaintiff fell after misstepping onto the elevator and that after her fall, she successfully rode the escalator up to the next level with no further escalator malfunction.  Moreover, defendant’s expert opined that plaintiff’s description of the alleged malfunctioning was a mechanical impossibility because it would have resulted in a catastrophic mechanical failure of the escalator that would have resulted in observable problems and would have required a significant repair, none of which occurred.

Plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact.  Her expert relied on a bare-bones print-out of prior elevator incidents that was unauthenticated and that gave no indication that the incidents were similar to the one at issue.  The print-out was therefore inadmissible as proof of prior incidents.  Also inadmissible were service calls made by Macy’s to the elevator servicing company four and five months before plaintiff’s incident.  The calls pertained to an escalator on a different level that was not running, which was a malfunction that was unrelated to the type plaintiff described.  Moreover, plaintiff’s expert’s opinion that the accident was caused by a defective step chain and a lack of proper and adequate preventative maintenance was speculative and conclusory.

Lastly, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which would permit a jury to infer negligence based upon the sheer happening of the event, was inapplicable:  The escalator never operated in the manner that plaintiff described either before or after her incident, and plaintiff, after her fall, rode the escalator up to the next level without further malfunctioning.   The evidence of plaintiff’s misstepping getting onto the escalator created the possibility of plaintiff’s own negligence in causing the accident.  And res ipsa loquitur could not be applied to Macy’s because Macy’s had ceded all responsibility for the daily operation, repair and maintenance of the escalator to the servicing company via a full-service contract.

Torres-Martinez v Macy’s, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00429 (1^st Dep’t Jan. 24, 2017) http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_00429.htm.

In contrast, however, the First Department did apply res ipsa loquitur to defeat the motion for summary judgment by defendant NYC Housing Authority in a case where plaintiff was injured when an elevator came to a unexplained sudden and abrupt stop; defendant failed to demonstrate that it lacked exclusive control over the elevator; and there was no evidence that vandalism caused the elevator’s malfunction or that plaintiff’s actions contributed to the accident.

Galante v. New York City Hous. Auth, 2017 NY Slip Opn  00430 (1^st Dep’t Jan. 24, 2017) http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_00430.htm

Met Opera’s motion to dismiss a star’s negligence action against it was properly denied.

In a decision by Justice Rolando Acosta, the First Department affirmed Special Term’s denial of the Met Opera’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s negligence action.  The Met based its motion on plaintiff’s status as the Met’s employee or special employee, which would have relegated plaintiff to the exclusive remedy of worker’s compensation per WCL §11.

By way of background, the New York Times reported on December 18, 2011 that mezzo soprano Wendy White, while singing the role of Marthe in Gounod’s “Faust” the preceding evening, fell from a platform eight feet above the stage as she made her entrance in Act III.   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/arts/music/opera-singer-wendy-white-in-stable-condition-after-a-fall-at-the-met.html.   As she walked onto a platform from a staircase, a hinge on a piece of plywood that connected the platform to the stairway broke, and Ms. White disappeared from view.  The curtain was dropped and Ms. White was taken to the hospital.  Id.  Ms. White broke no bones but suffered nerve and muscle damage that has prevented her from singing professionally.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/arts/music/wendy-white-says-met-refuses-to-pay-her-after-injury.html.

At issue on the Met’s motion to dismiss was Workers’ Comp. Law§ 2(4), which was enacted in 1986 to define “employee” to include those in the performing arts:

“a professional musician or a person otherwise engaged in the performing arts who performs services as such for … a theatre … or similar establishment … unless, by written contract, such musician or person is stipulated to be an employee of another employer covered by this chapter.”

WCL §2(4) (emph. supplied).

Plaintiff performed at the opera house pursuant to a “Standard Contractor’s Agreement (Per Performance”) between the Met and her corporation, Wendy White, Inc. (WW, Inc.), which defined WW, Inc. as the “Contractor”.

Notwithstanding various provisions of the Standard Contract and the collective bargaining agreement covering Ms. White, which gave the Met a certain amount of control over Ms. White in her performances, the First Department found the following factors important in denying the Met’s motion to dismiss:

• The Standard Contractor’s Agreement was between the Met and plaintiff’s corporation and specified that plaintiff was an employee of her corporation.
• The Standard Contractor’s Agreement did not cede total control of Ms. White’s performance to the Met, so the Met did not become her special employer.
• Plaintiff’s corporation received only 1099’s, not W-2’s from the Met.
• The Met paid her no employment benefits and had told her she did not qualify for the Met’s health insurance because she was not an employee.
• The Met provided her with no training, supervision, or direction from the Met with respect to how to perform her role and did not pay for her voice lessons or coaching.
• The legislative history behind section 2(4) stated that the section was intended to cover the vast majority of musicians and performers who are not in the star category, as opposed to star performers who are independent professionals able to negotiate the terms of their engagements.
• Without plaintiff’s consent, the Met filed a worker’s compensation claim in New York with its worker’s compensation, which the Met’s WC carrier accepted “without prejudice”.
• The Worker’s Compensation Board cancelled its proposed decision of accident, notice and causal relationship on the ground that claimant wanted the case to be discontinued because she had filed her own WC claim in New Jersey against her corporation-employer.
• The Met had previously taken the opposite position in an unrelated case, Inre Metropolitan Opera Assn., Inc. and Operatic Artists of America, (327 NLRB No. 136, 327 NLRB 740, 744-745 1999 WL 112550, *9, 1999 NLRB LEXIS 113, *29-30 [NLRB 1999]).

Plaintiff’s corporation therefore met the definition of an “employer covered by this chapter,” inasmuch as it is a corporation “having one or more persons in employment” per WCL § 2(3).

Lastly, the failure of plaintiff’s corporation to have obtained a workers’ compensation policy compliant with WCL §50(2) did not mean that plaintiff was necessarily covered by the Met’s worker’s compensation policy, because the statutory consequence of failing to obtain such a policy is simply payment of a penalty.  In addition, WCL §54(6)(c) provides that a corporation such as plaintiff’s, whose sole employee is an executive officer who owns 100% of the stock, need not purchase workers’ compensation for the employee.  Moreover, plaintiff’s corporation was not seeking to invoke the benefits of the immunity provision of WCL §11 without fulfilling its corresponding obligation under the statute.

White v. Metropolitan Opera Ass’n, 2017 NY Slip Op. 00093 (Jan. 5, 2017)   http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_00093.htm

Defendant homeowner’s insurer properly rescinded the policy based on insureds’ innocent misrepresentation that the home was to be occupied, and the insurance broker had no duty to make sure the insureds properly filled out the application.

The Second Department held that defendant insurer properly rescinded plaintiffs’ fire insurance policy based upon the plaintiffs’ misrepresentation the residence would be owner-occupied because a misrepresentation can be innocently made and still trigger rescission. The Second Department also found that the broker had no obligation to make sure that plaintiffs properly filled out the insurance application.

Before plaintiffs bought the subject residence in Brooklyn, plaintiffs’ mortgage broker told plaintiffs that plaintiffs needed insurance to close.  The mortgage broker contacted defendant insurance broker to procure a homeowners’ insurance policy based upon plaintiffs’ representations in their loan application that they would occupy the premises as their primary residence.  Plaintiffs signed an application for owner-occupied homeowner’s insurance and defendant insurance carrier issued a homeowner’s insurance policy on the closing date.

After fire damaged the premises, defendant insurer discovered that plaintiffs did not occupy the premises as their primary residence and rescinded the policy, on the ground that plaintiffs’ material  representation about occupancy induced the insurer to issue a policy that it normally would not have issued.

Plaintiffs sued the insurer and the insurance broker for breach of contract and negligence. Held:  Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to defendant insurer and defendant insurance and properly denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment against both defendants.

The insurer established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence showing that the plaintiffs’ application for insurance contained a misrepresentation regarding whether the premises would be owner occupied and showing that it would not have issued the subject policy if the application had disclosed that the subject premises would not be owner occupied.  In holding that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Second Department  stated:

• Plaintiffs admitted that, when they signed the application for insurance, they did not intend to occupy the premises. Plaintiffs unsuccessfully contended that, although the application was completed before to closing and before to the inception of the policy, the representation that the premises was an owner-occupied primary residence established, in effect, a material misrepresentation of a then existing fact that the premises would be owner occupied, which was sufficient for rescission under Insurance Law § 3105.

• Secondary evidence of plaintiffs’ first application for insurance which plaintiffs signed was proof in admissible form under CPLR 4539[b]). And plaintiff’s unsigned second application was also admissible.

• The question on the application about owner occupancy was unambiguous and therefore could properly serve as the basis for a claim of misrepresentation. Moreover, plaintiffs admitted that they did not read the application when they signed it, so they could not have been misled by any unclear language.

• The insurer was not required to establish that plaintiffs’ misrepresentation was willful. An innocent or unintentional material misrepresentation is enough to warrant rescission of an insurance policy.

• The policy language did not require a showing of willfulness for rescission based on a misrepresentation made when applying for coverage.

• Although there was a question of fact as to whether the insurance broker was an agent or a broker vis-à-vis the insurer, there was no issue of fact as to whether the insurance broker knew of the material misrepresentation, so no such knowledge could not be imputed to the insurer.

With regard to the insurance broker, insurance brokers have a common-law duty to obtain coverage that their client request within a reasonable time or inform the client of the inability to do so, but they have no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct a client to obtain additional coverage.  So to state cause of action for negligence or breach of contract against an insurance broker, plaintiff must establish that a specific request was made to the broker for the coverage that was not provided in the policy.

Although in exceptional circumstances a special relationship may develop between the broker and client that will make the broker liable for failing to advise or direct the client to obtain additional coverage even in the absence of a specific request, none of those circumstances applied here.  The three exceptional situations are: (1) the agent receives compensation for consultation apart from payment of the premiums; (2) there was some interaction regarding a question of coverage, with the insured relying on the expertise of the agent; or (3) there is a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on.

The insurance broker demonstrated that none of the exception circumstances applied and further demonstrated that it procured the insurance requested.

Joseph v Interboro Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 08050, 2nd Dept 11-30-16 http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_08050.htm

Tort-plaintiff is entitled to “made whole” rule vis-à-vis his no-fault carrier’s subrogation right against his tort settlement.

Tort-plaintiff (“plaintiff”) had sued tort-defendant (“defendant”) for plaintiff’s personal injuries resulting from their two-car accident.  Plaintiff’s no-fault carrier had paid plaintiff $100,000 in APIP (additional personal injury protection), which the no-fault carrier has the right to recoup from plaintiff’s tort settlement.

Defendant’s carrier eventually offered defendant’s policy limit of $100,000 to settle plaintiff’s case.  Plaintiff accepted the offer and served a supreme-court order to show cause on plaintiff’s no-fault carrier requesting a declaration that the no-fault carrier’s subrogation rights were limited to extended economic loss (that is, to the portion of the settlement allocable to the category of damages for which APIP benefits were meant to compensate).  Respondent did not oppose supreme court’s adjudicating the dispute over its subrogation rights but contended that plaintiff owed it the full amount of the APIP benefits paid (some $39,500).   Supreme court directed plaintiff to pay the no-fault carrier the full amount of APIP benefits paid.   Plaintiff thereupon formally tendered the amount and pursed his appeal.

The no-fault carrier argued preliminarily that plaintiff’s tender of payment made the appeal moot, but the Fourth Department held that it did not, because the parties’ rights would be affected directly by the outcome of the appeal.

Plaintiff argued that, under the “made whole” rule, the no-fault carrier had no right of subrogation because plaintiff’s damages exceed the amount of the settlement.

[Explanatory note with regard to subrogation: If defendant’s insurance is insufficient to compensate plaintiff fully for plaintiff’s loss, plaintiff retains a right of action against defendant personally.  In those cases where plaintiff has his own insurance that covers the balance of plaintiff’s loss (first-party insurance), and plaintiff’s first-party insurer in fact pays him, plaintiff’s first-party insurer acquires plaintiff’s right to pursue the defendant for the amount that plaintiff’s first-party insurer has paid.  To state it another way, plaintiff’s first-party insurer is subrogated to plaintiff’s claim against defendant.

[The “made whole” rule then provides that if defendant’s insurance is inadequate to fully compensate plaintiff for his losses, plaintiff’s first-party insurer, whom the insured has paid to assume the risk of loss, has no right to share in the proceeds of the insured-plaintiff’s recovery from the tort-defendant.  In other words, plaintiff’s first-party insurer may subrogate against only those funds and assets that remain after plaintiff-insured has been fully compensated.  This designation of priority of interests assures that the injured party’s claim against the tort-defendant takes precedence over the subrogation rights of his first-party insurer.

[Here plaintiff’s own insurer was his no-fault carrier which paid plaintiff “additional personal injury protection” (APIP) benefits, also known as extended economic loss.  Therefore plaintiff’s no-fault carrier would be subrogated only to plaintiff’s recovery after plaintiff was made whole and then only for the portion of settlement attributable to economic loss, not to plaintiff’s pain and suffering.]

Supreme court here, however, refused to apply the made-whole rule or to prorate the settlement between extended economic loss and pain and suffering, and instead had directed plaintiff to pay his no-fault insurer the entire amount of APIP benefits.

The Fourth Department agreed with plaintiff that supreme court should have applied the made-whole rule but remanded the matter for a determination as to (a) whether the settlement made plaintiff whole and (b) what portion of the $100,000 settlement was for plaintiff’s extended economic loss and what portion was for plaintiff’s pain and suffering.

The Fourth Department therefor reversed supreme court’s judgment (which had the additional defect of failing to declare the rights of the parties) and remitted the matter for the required determinations and for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties in accordance therewith.

Grinage v Durawa [in re ACA Insurance Co., respondent], 2016 NY Slip Op 07429 (4^th Dep’t Nov. 10, 2016);  http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_07429.htm.