Civil Procedure Update December 2020

Civil Procedure Update December 2020

(Nontransitional) Prerecorded Audio (On Demand/Recorded-Audio)

Appropriate for Experienced Attorneys

Areas of Professional Practice: 1 CLE Credit Hour

Note: Before Relying On Any Decision Summarized on this Site, Including the Summaries in the CLE Written Materials, Make Sure It Remains Good Law Using the Method You Trust for that Purpose. See the Discussion Under “Shepardize” in the “How to Use the New York Appellate Digest” Section on the Home Page.

This course organizes summaries of decisions by the New York State appellate courts (Appellate Division and Court of Appeals) released between December 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 which address issues in “Civil Procedure.” Similar 1/2-to 1-hour CLE courses are continuously being submitted for approval to the NYS CLE Board for each month from January 2019 to the present, to provide readers with CLE credit simply for keeping up to date with the latest appellate decisions.

The “Civil Procedure” decision-summaries posted weekly on the New York Appellate Digest website are organized in monthly pamphlets which are accessed in the “Update Service.” The monthly pamphlets comprise the written materials for these monthly CLE courses. A link to the written materials for this course (“Civil Procedure Update Pamphlet December 2020”) is provided below.

As you listen to the course, you will hear a verification code. After finishing the course, print and fill out the attached “Attorney Affirmation,” including the verification code, your name, your signature, and the date you completed the course. Please also fill out the attached “Evaluation Survey” (the CLE Board requires that I collect and preserve the Evaluation Surveys). Scan the “Attorney Affirmation” and the “Evaluation Survey” and email them as attachments to me, Bruce Freeman, at NewYorkAppellateDigest@gmail.com. I will email to you the completed “New York CLE Certificate of Attendance,” as an attachment, awarding you credit for the 1 credit-hour course. Or, if you wish to send and receive hard copies by regular mail, send the “Attorney Affirmation” and “Evaluation Survey” to New York Appellate Digest, LLC, 126 Colonial Village Road, Rochester, New York 14625 and make sure to include your return address.

Click on the links below for the written materials (“Civil Procedure Update Pamphlet December 2020”), the “Attorney Affirmation” (the “verification code” form) and the “Evaluation Survey.”

The media player for this course is at the bottom of the page.

Civil Procedure Update Pamphlet December 2020

Civil Procedure Update December 2020 Attorney Affidavit

Civil Procedure Update December 2020 Evaluation Survey

Topics Covered in the “Civil Procedure Update December 2020” Course Are Described Below (the podcast may not address every case in the written materials); Page Numbers Refer to the Written Materials, i.e., the “Civil Procedure Update Pamphlet December 2020”

ABANDONMENT, SUBMISSION OF JUDGMENT. 7

PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DIRECTION TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT “ON NOTICE” (SECOND DEPT). 7

APPEALS, RETRIAL AFTER REMITTAL. 8

THE DECRETAL PARAGRAPH OF THE APPELLATE DECISION REMITTING THE MATTER FOR RETRIAL DID NOT IMPOSE THE CONDITIONS ON RETRIAL WHICH WERE IMPOSED BY SUPREME COURT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). 8

ARTICLE 78, WRIT OF PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW. 9

ALTHOUGH THE TWO INDICTMENTS ALLEGED THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI FOR MEDICAID FRAUD, THE CHARGES INVOLVED DIFFERENT PARTIES AND TIME PERIODS; THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION SEEKING TO PRECLUDE PROSECUTION ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS DENIED OVER A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). 9

ARTICLE 78. 10

THE PETITIONER, A PROBATIONARY POLICE OFFICER CHALLENGING HIS TERMINATION, RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; THEREFORE THE SUMMARY DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CPLR 409 WAS NOT AVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT). 10

ATTACHMENT. 10

THE CRITERIA FOR THE HARSH REMEDY OF ATTACHMENT WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT). 10

DEFAULT. 11

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NEVER ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, HE APPEARED BY MAKING A MOTION TO DISMISS AND PARTICIPATED IN THE LITIGATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE A NECESSARY PARTY OR THE FAILURE TO JOIN OR SUBSTITUTE A PARTY WAS NOT WARRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 11

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. 13

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AND OTHER CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO DISMISSAL WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT). 13

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. 13

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). 13

JUDGES, SUA SPONTE, FORECLOSURE, NOTICE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. 14

THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE BANK’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THEREFORE MUST BE RAISED AS A DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT). 14

JUDGES, SUA SPONTE. 15

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, IMPOSED AN INJUNCTION AND DETERMINED ISSUES OF FACT; NO MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT AND NO HEARING WAS HELD (SECOND DEPT). 15

MUNICIPAL LAW. 16

A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SOUNDS IN TORT TRIGGERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT). 16

NECESSARY PARTIES, FORECLOSURE, TRUSTS AND ESTATES. 17

THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DECEDENT; DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE HERSELF AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 17

NECESSARY PARTIES, FORECLOSURE. 17

THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO THE DEFENDANT BY WILL UPON THE DEATH OF THE PROPERTY OWNER; THEREFORE THE ESTATE WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). 17

PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL. 18

THE PROOF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT). 18

PLEADINGS, AMEND COMPLAINT. 19

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A WHEEL ON THE CONTAINER HE WAS PUSHING GOT STUCK IN A GAP IN THE FLOOR AFTER THE PLYWOOD COVERING THE GAP BROKE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6), LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). 19

PLEADINGS, AMEND COMPLAINT. 20

THE QUI TAM COMPLAINT ALLEGING INSURERS FAILED TO ACCURATELY REPORT UNCLAIMED LIFE INSURANCE PROCEEDS, TO WHICH THE STATE IS ENTITLED, IN VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK FALSE CLAIMS ACT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO SPECIFY THE FRAUD ALLEGATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). 20

PLEADINGS, AMEND COMPLAINT.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECTLY NAME THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 305(C) AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT). 21

PLEADINGS, FORECLOSURE, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. 22

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RESTORE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ABSENT SPECIFIC AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PLAINTIFF BANK NEED NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY AND CONTRACTUAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (SECOND DEPT). 22

SERVICE OF PROCESS, FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 23

SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT COMPLY WITH BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 307, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). 23

SERVICE OF PROCESS. 24

SURROGATE’S COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE, NUNC PRO TUNC, A METHOD OF SERVICE ON AN OUT-OF-STATE PARTY ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT PRIOR COURT APPROVAL (SECOND DEPT). 24

STANDING, FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY. 25

MOTHER HAD FLED TO ARGENTINA WITH THE CHILD WHILE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER’S PETITION SEEKING VISITATION ON THE GROUND SHE DID NOT HAVE STANDING; MATTER REMITTED FOR A BEST INTERESTS HEARING (SECOND DEPT). 25

STANDING, FORECLOSURE. 26

ALTHOUGH RPAPL 1320-a, ENACTED WHILE THIS APPEAL WAS PENDING, HAS CHANGED THINGS, THE DEFENDANTS’ LACK-OF-STANDING DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THEIR ANSWERS OR PRE-ANSWER MOTIONS; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (CT APP). 26

STANDING, FORECLOSURE. 27

THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 27

STANDING, FORECLOSURE. 27

THE BANK PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). 27

STANDING, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, FORECLOSURE. 28

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). 28

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. 29

THE RECEIPT OF THE LETTER BY CERTIFIED MAIL, NOT THE PRIOR RECEIPT OF AN EMAIL WITH THE LETTER ATTACHED, TRIGGERED THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; THE OMISSION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE RESPONDENTS BE SERVED WITH THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE COULD BE REMEDIED BY AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B (THIRD DEPT). 29

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CONTRACT LAW. 31

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR WAS REASONABLE BECAUSE THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE COULD BE TRIGGERED BY A PARTY OVER WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT). 31

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE. 32

CPLR 204(A) IN CONJUNCTION WITH RPAPL 1301(3) TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHILE THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING, FROM 2010 TO 2013, RENDERING THE SECOND FORECLOSURE ACTION IN 2017 TIMELY (THIRD DEPT). 32

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE. 33

PURPORTED MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MADE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT REVIVE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE PURCHASERS OF THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY OR THE BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE SECURED BY THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT). 33

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE. 34

THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED; THE DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT). 34

SUBPOENAS. 34

IN THIS ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE AFFIDAVITS OF CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, INFORMATION SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED (SECOND DEPT). 34

SUBSTITUTE A PARTY, BANKRUPTCY. 35

IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE FOR THE PLAINTIFF-DEBTOR, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO SEEK RELIEF FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT (SECOND DEPT). 35

SUBSTITUTE A PARTY, DECEASED DEFENDANT. 36

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A 30-DAY ADJOURNMENT TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT A DECEASED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT). 36

SUCCESSIVE MOTIONS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 37

THE SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE GENERALLY PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT). 37