You are here: / / NEW YORK IS A “PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM” JURISDICTION; HERE...

NEW YORK IS A “PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM” JURISDICTION; HERE COUNTERCLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined counterclaims in the current proceeding should not have been dismissed because they could have been raised in a prior proceeding: New York is a “permissive counterclaim” state:

New York is a permissive counterclaim jurisdiction under CPLR 3011 and 3019, where, generally, a defendant has no obligation to assert counterclaims and can wait to assert them in separate litigation … . However, while “[o]ur permissive counterclaim rule may save from the bar of res judicata those claims for separate or different relief that could have been but were not interposed in the parties’ prior action,” the rule “does not . . . permit a party to remain silent in the first action and then bring a second one on the basis of a preexisting claim for relief that would impair the rights or interests established in the first action” … .

Here, [the party’s] failure to assert the remaining causes of action as counterclaims in the prior action did not preclude him from asserting them in this action because, if [he] were successful on those causes of action, this would not impair the rights that were or could be established in the prior action with respect to him … . Berry v Batash, 2026 NY Slip Op 01755, Second Dept 3-25-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when counterclaims which could have been raised in a prior proceedings should or should not be dismissed.

 

You might also like
Service of an Unverified Petition in Violation of the Court of Claims Act Did Not Constitute a Jurisdictional Defect
THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING IN THIS STATUTORY, COMPULSORY ARBITRATION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE BANK’S UNEXCUSED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE IN VIOLATION OF 22 NYCRR 202.27(c) (SECOND DEPT).
GENERALLY THE DEATH OF A PARTY TO AN ACTION DIVESTS THE COURT OF JURISDICTION AND REQUIRES A STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS; HERE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION HUSBAND AND WIFE OWNED THE PROPERTY AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY; THE PROPERTY THEREFORE REMAINED WHOLLY OWNED BY WIFE UPON HUSBAND’S DEATH; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT SEEKING A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST HUSBAND’S ESTATE, A STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
Most Important Among the Criteria for Allowing a Late Notice of Claim Is the Municipality’s Timely Knowledge of the Essential Facts Underlying the Claim (Not Met Here)
Where It Is Possible Jurors Relied On an Illegal Ground a General Verdict Must Be Set Aside, Even If Alternative Legal Grounds Were Provided to the Jury
Question of Fact Whether Out of Possession Landlord, Based on the Terms of the Lease, Had a Duty to Keep the Premises Safe (Labor Law 200)

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 JUDGE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED PROCEDURES FOR FINDING A PARTY IN... THE DAY CARE PROVIDER TESTIFIED HER BACK WAS TURNED WHEN INFANT PLAINTIFF FELL...