You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION...

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78/SUMMARY JUDGMENT ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE.

The Second Department reversed the dismissal of a petition because a question of fact had been raised about the adequacy of notice of a tax lien. The Second Department also reversed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment portion of this hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment action because no motion had been made for summary determination of declaratory judgment request:

“In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those which seek to recover damages and declaratory relief, on the other hand. The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment” … . “Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … . Here, since no party made such a motion, the Supreme Court should not have summarily disposed of the cause of action that sought declaratory relief, and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on that cause of action … . Matter of East W. Bank v L & L Assoc. Holding Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07956, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE)/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE)/HYBRID ACTIONS (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE)/ARTICLE 78 (HYBRID ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE)

You might also like
Appellant, Who Was Only Mentioned in the Complaint As the Holder of a Second Mortgage, Properly Appeared in the Action by Serving a Notice of Appearance Which Entitled Appellant to Be Kept Informed of the Progress of the Proceeding—There Is No Filing Requirement for a Notice of Appearance
DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD THE BURDEN TO PROVE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENDANT FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS TRAVELLING TOO FAST AND WHETHER HE KEPT A PROPER LOOKOUT FOR PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIMANT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) and 241(6) ACTION AGAINST THE STATE SERVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM BUT NOT THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY (NYSTA); ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE (IGNORANCE OF THE LAW) WAS NOT VALID, THE ACTION HAD MERIT AND THE NYSTA HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; THEREFORE CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE A LATE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE EVIDENCE OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Consolidation of Trials Okay Even If Some Prejudice Results; Potential for Inconsistent Verdicts Eliminated by Consolidation
CHILD CONCEIVED WITH AN EGG FROM AN ANONYMOUS DONOR AND CARRIED BY A GESTATIONAL SURROGATE PURSUANT TO AN UNPAID SURROGACY CONTRACT MAY BE ADOPTED BY THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER (SECOND DEPT).
ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT SERVED UPON A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS SERVER ALLEGED THE PETITION WAS DELIVERED TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEP WHO SAID SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RETAILER ATTEMPTED TO RECOVER PAYMENTS MADE TO A BANK STEMMING FROM THE HACKING OF MASTERCARD CREDIT CARD INFORMATION FROM THE RETAILER’S ACCOUNTS UNDER EQUITABLE SUBROGATION, MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORIES, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE... CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED,...