Page 10 - WCBA CLE 6-14-2022

9

NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
RECENT SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS

CIVIL:

Pitt v Feagles, 202 AD3d 109 [ Dec 22, 2021][Justice Connolly opinion; Justices
Mastro, Austin, Duffy concur]:

HOLDING ON APPEAL: A defendant who had been adjudicated a youthful offender
under CPL 720 has not been "convicted of a crime" for the purposes of extending the
statute of limitations in a civil action pursuant to CPLR 213-b(1). Thus, the order of the
Supreme Court dismissing the civil action as time-barred was affirmed as the time
extension pursuant to CPLR 213-b(1) was inapplicable.

CPLR 213-b(1): “Action by a victim of a criminal offense,” “an action by a
crime victim . . . may be commenced to recover damages from a defendant:
(1) convicted of a crime which is the subject of such action, for any injury
or loss resulting therefrom within seven years of the date of the crime”

FACTS: The plaintiff commenced a civil action in 2016 to recover damages for
intentional torts, including, false arrest and malicious prosecution based on acts that
occurred in 2011. The defendant interposed an answer which included the affirmative
defense that the action was barred by the statute of limitations and thereafter moved,
inter alia, for summary judgment dismissed the complaint as time-barred. The Supreme
Court granted/denied the defendant’s motion. “Convicted” is not defined in CPLR 213-
b(1) and pursuant to YO statutes CPL Article 720 substitutes “youthful offender finding”
for the conviction of an eligible youth when there is a determination that the eligible
youth is a youthful offender (CPL 720.10[4]).

Porges v Weitz, 205 AD3d 13 [March 16, 2022][Justice Zayas opinion; Justices
Brathwaite Nelson, Chambers, Roman concur]:

HOLDING ON APPEAL: The Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s
motion for summary judgment dismissing a complaint alleging, inter alia, defamation as
the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

FACTS: A junior tennis player, by his parents, brought a defamation action against one
of the parents of another junior tennis player alleging that the parent reported, via email,
to a United States Tennis Association (USTA) official, that her son was being bullied by
the player at USTA junior tennis tournaments and during tennis lessons and that the

1