Page 22 - WCBA CLE 6-14-2022

21

JUNE 14 CLE – CASE SUMMARIES (LC)

CIVIL CASES:

S.H. v DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, 2022 N.Y. SLIP OP. 02982 (May 2022) by Christopher, J.

This case presents an issue of first impression regarding whether CPLR 214-g, the statute enacted as part
of the New York Child Victims Act that revives time-barred causes of action brought by survivors of
childhood sexual abuse, is available to a nonresident plaintiff where the alleged abuse occurred outside
New York. Additionally, the case presents the issue of whether New York’s “borrowing” statute, CPLR
202, limits the statutory period under which a cause of action that accrued outside New York may be
brought when that period has passed.

The Second Department held that CPLR 214-g is not available to nonresident plaintiffs where the alleged
acts of abuse occurred outside New York. Further, CPLR 214-g does not preclude the application of CPLR
202 in determining the appropriate limitations period for a cause of action that accrued outside New
York.
MURRAY v TOWN OF NORTH CASTLE, 203 AD3d 150 (February 2022) by Miller, J.

The plaintiff police officer commenced this action against the defendant town to, among other things,
permanently enjoin the town from maintaining a disciplinary proceeding against him and from
withholding retirement benefits allegedly granted by the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.

The Second Department held that the applicable state and local laws invoked uniformly support the
defendant town’s authority to subject the plaintiff to its disciplinary process.

EVERBANK v KELLY, 203 AD3d 138 (February 2022) by Dillon, J.

In this residential mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff served process upon the defendants at the
subject property by hand delivering copies of the summons and complaint to a relative of the defendant
who verified that the defendant actually resided at that location. The defendant then moved to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that he did not live at the subject property and service of process upon him
was void and improper.

The Second Department held that service of process upon a defendant at an address that is not actually
the defendant’s dwelling or place of above is defective, notwithstanding the fact that the process server
relied upon an affirmative misrepresentation received at the doorstep to establish that service was
valid.

SIEGEL v SNYDER, 202 ad3D 125 (December 2021) by Christopher, J.

The decedent was transported to the defendant South Nassau Communities Hospital after sustaining
injuries in a car accident and died shortly after being removed from life support. The hospital held a
“Trauma Peer Review Committee” meeting, at which the decedent’s treatment was reviewed for quality
assurance and medical malpractice prevention. The meeting minutes contained statements attributed
to the “committee” and one statement attributed to the “Trauma Medical Director.” After
commencement of this action, the plaintiff made discovery demands which included hospital records