Page 2 - Court of Appeal and Appellate Practice

S2 | MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2014 | Court of Appeals and Appellate Practice
| NYLJ.COM

COURT OF APPEALS: CIVIL PRACTICE

By Patrick M. Connors

Court’s Decisions Include

Resolution of Nonparty

Disclosure Conlict

T

his piece summarizes civil procedure the Supreme Court turned to the subject of sonal injuries caused by the latent effects of

decisions handed down by the New speciic jurisdiction in Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. exposure to harmful substances within three
York Court of Appeals during its 2013- Ct. 1115 (2014), a decision that will no doubt years from the discovery of the injury, or from
2014 term. Given our space limitations, we limit the application of CPLR 302 in New York the date the injuries should have been dis-
have addressed only a portion of the court’s actions based on longarm jurisdiction.
covered “through the exercise of reasonable
holdings in this arena, with an emphasis on Despite our increasingly global economy, diligence,” whichever is earlier. CPLR 214-c(2).
those points that are most relevant to every- the decisions in Daimler and Walden signii- This legislative endeavor was designed to alle-
day practice in The Empire State. Readers cantly limit the ability of a plaintiff to com- viate some of the unfairness stemming from
searching for a discussion of the other relevant mence an action in the state of her residence the old rule that required a plaintiff to sue
opinions from the court during the 2013-2014 and will often give the defendant the advan- within three years of the date of the exposure

term will want to review the biannual supple- tage of conducting litigation on its home to the substance, regardless of whether she
ments to Siegel, New York Practice (Patrick turf. The impact of these decisions on New could demonstrate any palpable injury at the
Connors ed., 5th ed., July 2014 Supplement; York civil practice is the subject of many sec- time the action was commenced.
January 2015 Supplement [forthcoming]).
tions in the July 2014 Supplement to the New Although CPLR 214-c afforded plaintiffs
York Practice text and was explored in two some relief on the statute of limitations front,
SCOTUS Personal Jurisdiction Decisions
recent New York Law Journal articles appear- the court in Caronia observed that it did not
ing on June 18 and July 21, 2014. The Court alter New York’s “long-held” “requirement that
Our focus in this space is the jurisprudence of Appeals will ultimately need to grapple a plaintiff sustain physical harm before being

of the New York Court of Appeals, but we with these Supreme Court decisions, prob- able to recover in tort . .” Caronia, 22 N.Y.3d
would be remiss if we did not mention two ably sooner than later.
at 446. Therefore, it refused to recognize an
decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme “independent cause of action for medical moni-
Court in January and February that signii- ‘Long-Held Physical Harm Requirement’
cantly narrowed the scope of previously
understood notions of personal jurisdiction. In In Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, 22 N.Y.3d
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), 439 (2013), present and former smokers PATRICK M. CONNORS is a professor at Albany
the Supreme Court essentially declared that brought an action seeking damages for, Law School, where he teaches New York Practice
New York’s “doing business test,” employed among other things, medical monitoring of
and Professional Responsibility. He has assumed
by our courts for decades to measure whether their condition. The court acknowledged that the authorship of Siegel, New York Practice (5th ed.
a corporate defendant is subject to general the adoption of CPLR 214-c in 1986 changed
jurisdiction in New York, does not comport the accrual rule for calculating the statute 2011), and continues to author McKinney’s Practice
with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth of limitations in certain actions. See New Commentaries to several articles in the CPLR.
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Just six York Practice §40. CPLR 214-c now permits
weeks after its blockbuster opinion in Daimler,
a plaintiff to commence an action for per-

INSIDE

S6 S8 S14 S17
COURT OF APPEALS
Among Signiicant Medical Monitoring APPELLATE PRACTICE
Preserving Issues What’s Your Problem?
S4 Cases Address a Second Decisions,
Cause of Action S10 Five Ways to Impress, For Appeal
Are You Aggrieved?
Amendment Challenge Court Vacates Prior Rejected in One of hree Five Ways to Depress by SCOTT CHESIN
by HARRY STEINBERG
Breach of Duty
Stand-Out Cases
An Appellate Judge
and MICHAEL RAYFIELD
And a Non-Citizen Felony To Defend Ruling
by JEFFREY S. LICHTMAN S18 he Appellate Mandate:
Plea, Among Other Issues by EVAN H. KRINICK
and RICHARD A. MENCHINI
by JOSEPH P. SULLIVAN
by PAUL SHECHTMAN
S16 Smile:
A Critical Step
his Is Oral Argument
by GREGORY SILBERT
by DONNA ALDEA
and KAMI LIZARRAGA

© 2014 ALM Media Properties, LLC
COURT OF APPEALS AND APPELLATE PRACTICE: Editor-In-Chief: KRIS FISCHER; Sections Editor: ANGELA TURTURRO; Design: MONIKA KOZAK; Photography: RICK KOPSTEIN, Bigstock, File