You are here: / / ONCE THE JUDGE DETERMINED THERE WERE NECESSARY PARTIES WHICH WERE NOT JOINED,...
,

ONCE THE JUDGE DETERMINED THERE WERE NECESSARY PARTIES WHICH WERE NOT JOINED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND SUMMONED IF POSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have ruled on the motion for a default judgment without first identifying the necessary parties to the action (after concluding there in fact were necessary parties who were not joined):

“[N]ecessary parties are persons who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action and must be made plaintiffs or defendants” … . “CPLR 1001(b) requires the court to order the necessary party or parties summoned, where they are subject to the court’s jurisdiction, and ‘[i]f jurisdiction over such necessary parties can be obtained only by their consent or appearance, the court is to determine, in accordance with CPLR 1001(b), whether justice requires that the action proceed in their absence'” … . “The nonjoinder of necessary parties may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion, including for the first time on appeal” … .

Here, it was premature for the Supreme Court to make a determination on the plaintiff’s motion, among other things, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants without first identifying the necessary parties to the action … . After the court concluded that there existed necessary parties to the action, the court … should have ascertained the identity of those parties, whether they can be joined, and, if not, whether the action should proceed in the absence of any necessary parties pursuant to CPLR 1001(b) … . Under the circumstances of this case, “‘the questions of whether there are any . . . necessary parties who should be joined in this action and, if so, the appropriate procedural disposition for effecting joinder should not be determined by this court in the first instance'” … . Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hold a hearing to determine whether there are any necessary parties who should be joined in this action and, if so, to compel their joinder, subject to any affirmative defenses, and if joinder cannot be effectuated, to determine, pursuant to CPLR 1001(b), whether the action should proceed in the absence of any necessary parties. Hossain v Rahman, 2026 NY Slip Op 00352, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into to proper procedure which should be followed by a judge when there are necessary parties which have not been joined.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE CRACK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS TRIVIAL, THEREFORE THE BURDEN NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Doctrine of Res Judicata Did Not Preclude Lawsuit Against Defendant Building Inspector In His Individual Capacity After Summary Judgment (In Defendant’s Favor) In an Action Against Defendant In His Official Capacity—Transactional Approach to Res Judicata Explained
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PETITIONER, THE DECEASED MOTHER’S COUSIN, IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE STIPULATION SETTING A DATE FOR THE CLOSING ON DEFENDANT’S PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY DID NOT INFORM DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN DEFAULT IF THE CLOSING DID NOT TAKE PLACE BY THAT DATE; THEREFORE THERE WAS NO “TIME OF THE ESSENCE” AGREEMENT AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DOWN PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT).
KNEE HIGH TABLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
GALLBLADDER SURGERY WAS PERFORMED ON PLAINTIFF, BUT HER GALLBLADDER HAD BEEN REMOVED YEARS BEFORE; THE DOCTORS APPARENTLY DID NOT REVIEW THE AVAIABLE MEDICAL RECORDS; THE RADIOLOGIST DID NOT DISCOVER THAT THE GALLBLADDER WAS ABSENT; THE DOCTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT). ​
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION CHALLENGING... DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND...