Civil Procedure Updates to Know in New York for 2025 | Tyson & Mendes LLP

In 2025, get ready for a whirlwind of updates across the state. From personal jurisdiction to discovery and beyond, some recent cases are shifting the landscape in New York. Read below to find out what happened and learn the takeaways you need to know about!

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Inheriting Specific Personal Jurisdiction

In Lelchook v. Société Générale de Banque au Liban SAL, the United States Court of Appeals reviewed the following question: under New York law, does an entity that acquires all of another entity’s liabilities and assets, but does not merge with that entity, inherit the acquired entity’s status for purposes of specific personal jurisdiction?

In Lelchook, the plaintiffs were U.S. citizens injured in a Hezbollah attack in Israel. The plaintiffs sued the Lebanese Canadian Bank (LCB). LCB was accused of providing financial services to Hezbollah for years prior to the attacks. LCB and Société Générale de Banque au Liban SAL (SGBL) agreed to transfer all its assets and liabilities under a purchase agreement. The Court of Appeals determined the pleadings demonstrated LCB’s transaction of business in New York had a sufficient connection to establish personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute under CPLR 302.

SGBL had argued that the plaintiff needed to establish minimum contacts with New York separate from the contacts that LCB had. The court rejected this argument because SGBL was aware of the LCB’s exposure to the injured plaintiffs when they made their purchase agreement with LCB. They should have reasonably anticipated being subject to jurisdiction in New York.

Takeaway:

According to the Court of Appeals, an entity that acquires all of another entity’s assets and liabilities, but does not formally merge with that entity, still inherits the acquired entity’s jurisdictional status for the purposes of specific personal jurisdiction. This decision incentivizes thorough due diligence by businesses considering such acquisitions, requiring them to assess the potential costs and risks associated with the acquired liabilities, including potential litigation.

Manufacturer’s Minimum Contacts

In Pyle v. 260-261 Madison Ave. LLC, a 20,000-pound HVAC unit fell 30 stories after the sling hoisting it was allegedly severed by a sharp edge on the unit. The sling was provided by the defendant, Marine. The resulting accident reportedly caused physical injuries, property damage, and business interruption in the vicinity. Marine’s motion to dismiss was granted as the court found Marine could not be deemed to do or solicit business regularly in New York, engage in any persistent course of conduct in New York, or derive substantial revenue in New York. The Appellate Division noted that “[T]he Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that ‘the “fortuitous circumstance” that a product sold in another state later makes its way into the forum jurisdiction through no marketing or other effort of the defendant,’ or ‘“the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum,” cannot establish the requisite connection between the defendant and the forum’ to support an exercise of specific personal jurisdiction”.

Takeaway:

The court engaged in an analysis of Marine’s business contacts in New York. It found that product sales in New York were minimal or nonexistent. In addition, plaintiffs failed to show Marine should have expected or reasonably expected its alleged tortious activity in manufacturing a defective sling in Alabama would have direct consequences in New York. A product finding its way to New York does not automatically make the product’s manufacturer subject to New York’s jurisdiction.

SERVICE OF PROCESS

Mailing Requirement and Delivery under CPLR 308(2) and CPLR 2001

In Williams v. MTA Bus Co., the plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against a bus driver for MTA Bus Company was opposed by the MTA because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate proper service under CPLR 308(2). While the plaintiff successfully effectuated service via delivery, they failed to meet the mailing requirement under CPLR 308 (2).The court determined this omission was not a “technical infirmity” that could be excused under CPLR 2001, thus invalidating service. “Personal jurisdiction is not acquired pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) unless both the delivery and mailing requirements have been complied with”.

Takeaway:

The First Department reaffirmed the importance of complying with both requirements of CPLR 308(2), holding that CPLR 2001 cannot excuse incomplete service.

BILL OF PARTICULARS

Flexibility in Amending Bill of Particulars

In Marte v. Tishman, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted because the plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars failed to identify a specific provision of the Industrial Code that had been violated. The court held that “it could be remedied by amendment to the bill of particulars, even after the filing of a note of issue as long as there was no unfair surprise or prejudice.” In seeking to amend the BOP, the plaintiff alleged a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.22(c)(1), which sets forth requirements for platform flooring used as working areas or for unloading certain equipment. The court, finding no prejudice to the defendants due to the absence of new factual allegations or theories of liability, granted the plaintiff leave to amend his bill of particulars on this issue.

Takeaway:

The court allowed the plaintiff to amend their bill of particulars post-note of issue, finding no prejudice in allowing the identification of a specific code section to support previously asserted claims. While the plaintiff raised other industrial code provisions, the court rejected those as meritless based on the facts of the case.

AFFIRMATION OF TRUTH STATEMENT

Last year’s update to affirmation of truth statements should become standard in practice. Effective January 1, 2024, affirmations may be used instead of notarized affidavits in civil court submissions.

Takeaway:

Affirmations were previously exclusive to attorneys and health care professionals. The rule reads:

Affirmation of truth of statement. The statement of any person wherever made, subscribed and affirmed by that person to be true under the penalties of perjury, may be used in an action in New York in lieu of and with the same force and effect as an affidavit. Such affirmation shall be in substantially the following form:

I affirm this ___ day of ______, ____, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.

DISCOVERY

Known Conditions

In Chacon v. New York City Transit, plaintiff fell into a gap between the subway platform and the train at a Queens subway station and was injured. She sought damages for personal injuries from the city of New York and the MTA. She moved to compel the defendants to produce documents related to all gap-related studies, reports, accidents, and/or injuries occurring anywhere within the New York City subway system for 10 years prior to the date of the accident. The lower court granted the motion and the Second Department affirmed. The plaintiff established that “access to these documents may yield information material and necessary to the prosecution of the action, including information related to the defendants’ notice of the alleged dangerous condition that caused her accident and their duty to the plaintiff”.

Takeaway:

If the condition at the incident site existed for some time and the defendants knew about it, they should be prepared to produce documents spanning many years.

Social Media Information

In Spence v. Seepaul, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident. Defendants sought all photographs the plaintiff possessed that show post-accident activities, including social media photographs in discovery.

The court noted that the court of appeals explained that “New York discovery rules do not condition a party’s receipt of disclosure on a showing that the items the party seeks actually exists; rather, the request need only be appropriately tailored and reasonably calculated to yield relevant information. Indeed, as the name suggests, the purpose of discovery is to determine if material relevant to a claim or defense exists. In many if not most instances, a party seeking disclosure will not be able to demonstrate that items it has not yet obtained contain material evidence”. The court equated the production of photographs from a social media account as being no different than a production of a personal diary but that “upon a proper basis presented such diary is surely discoverable.”

Takeaway:

Obtaining non-private social media information in discovery can be challenging. Thorough deposition questioning and investigation are crucial to eliciting testimony that would establish the relevance of obtaining social media information in discovery.

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

In Colt v. New Jersey Transit Corp, plaintiff was injured in New York City by a bus owned by the New Jersey Transit. New Jersey Transit moved to dismiss the case pursuant to New Jersey’s sovereign immunity. The court denied the motion to dismiss, and the First Department affirmed that denial. However, the First Department’s reasoning was that the plaintiff lacked a judicial forum in New Jersey courts because the accident occurred in New York.

The court of appeals upheld the denial of the motion to dismiss, but not on the First Department’s reasoning. The court of appeals acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes states’ pre-ratification sovereign immunity and requires other states to respect that immunity. However, since New Jersey Transit is a state-created entity, the appellate court had to determine if that entity was entitled to sovereign immunity. The court developed a test, utilizing the Supreme Court’s analysis, to determine whether allowing a suit against a state-created entity would offend the state’s sovereign dignity. Applying this test, the court concluded that allowing the lawsuit against NJT in New York would not offend New Jersey’s sovereign dignity. Therefore, NJT could not claim sovereign immunity in this case.

Takeaway:

In this matter, the court considered the potential impact on New Jersey. Concluding that there would be no such impact, the court noted that New Jersey Transit is not an arm of the state. This distinction is significant in opening NJT to further litigation in New York.

CHILD VICTIMS ACT- CPLR 214-g

In Brown v. Riverside Church, plaintiff filed an action pursuant to the Child Victims Act (CPLR 214-g). Plaintiff asserted multiple causes of action relating to negligence and a cause of action of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the IIED claim was granted. The decision was appealed to the First Department and was overturned. The court noted that the IIED was not duplicative of other claims but was being asserted as an alternative to negligence claims.

Takeaway:

Discovery would be substantially similar with or without the IIED claim given that that the claim asserted would be an alternative to plaintiff’s negligence claims.

¹Lelchook v. Société Générale de Banque au Liban SAL, 41 N.Y.3d 629 (COA 2024)

²See Lelchook v. Société Générale de Banque au Liban SAL, 41 N.Y.3d 629, 638–39, 239 N.E.3d 172 (2024)

³Pyle v. 260-261 Madison Ave. LLC, 228 AD3d 567 (1st Dept 2024)

⁴Pyle v. 260-261 Madison Ave. LLC, 228 A.D.3d 567, 568, 213 N.Y.S.3d 326 (2024)

⁵Williams v. MTA Bus Co., 224 AD3d 467 (1st Dept. 2024)

⁶Williams v. MTA Bus Co., 224 A.D.3d 467, 468, 203 N.Y.S.3d 90 (2024)

⁷Marte v. Tishman Constr. Corp., 223 A.D.3d 527 (1st Dept. 2024)

⁸See Marte v. Tishman Constr. Corp., 223 A.D.3d 527, 528, 204 N.Y.S.3d 12 (2024)

⁹ Rule 2106 Affirmation of Truth of Statement

¹⁰Section 2106 — Affirmation of truth of statement, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/2106 (updated Dec. 27, 2024; accessed Feb. 8, 2025).

¹¹Chacon v. New York City Transit Auth., 231 A.D.3d 1008, 221 N.Y.S.3d 588 (2024)

¹²Chacon v. New York City Transit Auth., 231 A.D.3d 1008, 1010, 221 N.Y.S.3d 588 (2024)

¹³Spence v. Seepaul, 2024 NY Slip Op 32983(U) (Sup. Ct., Kings County, Aug. 15, 2024)

¹⁴ Spence v. Seepaul, No. 514470/2020, 2024 WL 3903388, at 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 15, 2024)

¹⁵Id., citing Patterson v. Turner Construction Company, 88 AD3d 617, 931 NYS3d 311 [1st Dept., 2011]

¹⁶Transit Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05867 (COA Nov. 25, 2024)

¹⁷See Colt v. New Jersey Transit Corp., No. 72, 2024 WL 4874365 (N.Y. Nov. 25, 2024)

¹⁸Brown v. Riverside Church in the City of NY, 231 AD3d 104 (1st Dept 2024)

¹⁹Brown v. Riverside Church in City of New York, 231 A.D.3d 104, 216 N.Y.S.3d 144 (2024)