You are here: / EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE RE: A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES...

Search Results

/ ,

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE RE: A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY BY THE VILLAGE PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of an extension of time to file a notice of appearance pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) 503 (B). The village’s petition for condemnation had been granted and the EDPL requires a landowner to file a notice of appearance for any claim of damages arise from the acquisition of real property. The landowners’ attorney failed to timely file the notice of appearance with the clerk of the court, but the village had been served with it. The Second Department explained the relevant law:

 

The time within which to file a written claim or notice of appearance pursuant to EDPL 503 is “merely a procedural direction to be issued by the court in the exercise of its broad discretion to administer the litigation in an orderly and expeditious manner” … . It is neither a statute of limitations nor a condition precedent to compensation and may be extended by the Supreme Court ” upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown'” … . In considering a motion for such an extension of time, “[a] court may properly consider factors such as the length of the delay, whether the opposing party has been prejudiced by the delay, the reason given for the delay, whether the moving party was in default before seeking the extension, and, if so, the presence or absence of an affidavit of merit” … .

Here, the landowners established ” good cause'” for an extension of time to file a notice of appearance … . Although the landowners’ attorney failed to properly file a notice of appearance with the clerk of the court within the timeframe set forth by the Supreme Court, the Village was nevertheless served with a notice of appearance that alerted it to the landowners’ claims. Moreover, the landowners repeatedly demanded an “advance payment” for the taking (EDPL 304), repeatedly requested that their expert appraisers be given access to the subject property in order to assess its value, and sought to exchange “written appraisal reports” (EDPL 508). In addition, after the Village had acquired the subject property, a judicial viewing of the property took place (see EDPL 510). Furthermore, the landowners demonstrated that their claim was potentially meritorious through the submission of expert evidence demonstrating that the property was worth significantly more than the amount tendered by the Village as an advance payment. Matter of Village of Haverstraw v Ray Riv. Co., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01500, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

 

EMINENT DOMAIN (EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE RE: DAMAGES FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY PROPERLY GRANTED)/NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (EMINENT DOMAIN, EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE RE: DAMAGES FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY PROPERLY GRANTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMINENT DOMAIN, EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEARANCE RE: DAMAGES FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY PROPERLY GRANTED)

/

MOTION TO RENEW BASED UPON LAW OFFICE FAILURE PROPERLY GRANTED; CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A MOTION TO RENEW IS FLEXIBLE.

The Second Department determined that law office failure was properly deemed an adequate ground for a motion to renew based on evidence which could have been presented to support the original motion. The Second Department further determined that, upon renewal, the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to timely file a complaint after service of the demand for a complaint was proper. The court noted the criteria for granting a motion to renew is flexible:

 

“Although a motion for leave to renew generally must be based on newly-discovered facts, this requirement is a flexible one, and a court has the discretion to grant renewal upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, provided that the movant offers a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the additional facts on the original motion” … . What is considered a “reasonable justification” is within the Supreme Court’s discretion … . “Law office failure can be accepted as a reasonable excuse in the exercise of the court’s sound discretion” … .

Here … the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to renew his opposition to her motion, as the excuse of law office failure presented by the plaintiff was reasonable under the circumstances … .

Furthermore, upon renewal, considering all the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for failure to serve a timely complaint. The plaintiff proffered a reasonable excuse for his delay in serving the complaint after being served by the appellant with a notice of appearance and demand for a complaint, and established that he had a potentially meritorious cause of action against the appellant … . Castor v Cuevas, 2016 NY Slip Op 01456, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR GRANTING A MOTION TO RENEW)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW IS FLEXIBLE)/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (MOTION TO RENEW BASED UPON LAW OFFICE FAILURE PROPERLY GRANTED)/RENEW, MOTION TO (CRITERIA FOR GRANTING IS FLEXIBLE)/RENEW, MOTION TO (LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED ADEQUATE GROUND FOR MOTION)

/

NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER.

The First Department determined the defendants demonstrated they did not have constructive notice of a dangerous condition allegedly caused by tracked in rain, noting there was no obligation to continuously mop up tracked in water:

 

“The fact that it was raining and water was being tracked in does not constitute notice of a dangerous situation”; … defendants “were under no obligation . . . to continuously mop up all tracked-in water” … . Moreover, plaintiff's own testimony established that the water on which she slipped was not visible and apparent and therefore could not provide constructive notice … . Plaintiff testified that, despite looking at the floor where she was walking, it was not until after she fell that she was able to discern the wet spots on the floor, which she described as clear droplets in a small area less than two feet in diameter that were “hard to have seen . . . when I was standing up.” Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the accumulating rain water was a recurrent condition … . Gunzburg v Quality Bldg. Servs. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 01438, 1st Dept 3-1-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER)/SLIP AND FALL (NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER)

/ ,

STAND-ALONE EXECUTIVE LAW 63 (12) CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD REINSTATED AGAINST DONALD TRUMP ET AL.

In an action by the Attorney General against Donald Trump, alleging fraud in connection with the operation of Trump University, the First Department, overruling its own precedent, determined Executive law 63 (12) authorized a stand-alone fraud cause of action. The court further held that the three-year statute of imitations for causes of action created by statute did not apply because Executive Law 63 (12) did not create a cause of action which did not exist at common law, rather it merely authorized the Attorney General to bring a fraud cause of action. Applying the six-year statute of limitations, the First Department reinstated the Executive Law 63 (12) cause of action, and concluded questions of fact precluded summary judgment on both the statutory and common law fraud claims:

… [L]ike similar statutes that authorize causes of action, § 63(12) defines the fraudulent conduct that it prohibits, authorizes the Attorney General to commence an action or proceeding to foreclose that conduct, and specifies the relief, including equitable relief, that the Attorney General may seek. Indeed, the language of § 63(12) parallels the language of the Martin Act, under which the Attorney General is undisputedly authorized to bring a standalone cause of action for fraudulent conduct in the securities context … . * * *

… [W]e find … that the fraud claim under § 63(12) is not subject to the three-year statute of limitations imposed by CPLR 214(2), but rather, is subject to the residual six-year statute of limitations in CPLR 213(1) … . … § 63(12) does not create any liability nonexistent at common law, at least under the court’s equitable powers. … § 63(12) does not encompass a significantly wider range of fraudulent activities than were legally cognizable before the section’s enactment … .

Nevertheless, petitioner is not entitled to summary determination of its fraud claims, under either the common law or the statute, because material issues of fact exist as to those claims. Matter of People of the State of N.Y. by Eric T. Schneiderman v Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01430, 1st Dept 3-1-16

 

/ ,

APPEAL WAIVER INVALID, FLAWED ON-THE-RECORD EXPLANATION OF WAIVED RIGHTS NOT REMEDIED BY SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because the trial judge did not make it clear the appeal-rights were distinct from those waived by the guilty plea. The written waiver signed by the defendant was not sufficient to remedy the flawed colloquy:

 

Here, the court never adequately explained the nature of the waiver, the rights the defendant would be waiving, or that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty. Rather, the court merely stated that “as a part of this” — that is, as part of the guilty plea — defendant was waiving his right to appeal and thus, that the convictions would be final because no appellate court would review them. Despite our dissenting colleague’s suggestion otherwise, the problem with the waiver’s validity is not that there was “some ambiguity in the court’s colloquy.” Rather, by using the phrase “as a part of this,” the trial court expressly undercut the principle that a defendant must understand his waiver of appeal to be distinct from the rights forfeited upon a guilty plea … . …

… [T]the written waiver that defendant signed was no substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal … . This conclusion holds especially true here, where the record does not make clear when defendant signed the waiver. Although the waiver itself states that defendant signed the waiver only “after being advised by the Court,” it is not evident from the record whether defendant signed the waiver before the colloquy regarding his right to appeal, or whether he signed it after. People v Bryant, 2016 NY Slip Op 01427, 1st Dept 3-1-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (INVALID WAIVER OF APPEAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID)/WAIVER (APPEAL, WAIVER INVALID DESPITE SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER)

/ ,

NON-SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STRUCK BY A CAR DRIVEN BY A FORMER RESIDENT OF THE FACILITY.

The Third Department determined the complaint against defendant non-secure detention facility for juveniles was properly dismissed. Weeks after the juvenile had left and been discharged from the detention facility, the juvenile was in a high-speed police car-chase and crashed into plaintiff’s car.  The Third Department concluded that the detention facility did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, did not have a duty to supervise the juvenile because the juvenile was not in defendant’s custody, and, from the standpoint of the detention facility, the juvenile’s actions were not foreseeable:

 

Defendant’s nonsecure residential treatment center is located on an open campus without gates or bars, and residents are not locked in. Here, the resident was attending an educational program when he chose to leave. One of defendant’s staff members followed him and tried unsuccessfully to persuade him to return. The staff member did not attempt to physically prevent the resident from leaving, pursuant to defendant’s policy that — under the statutory mandate against physical restrictions — permits such intervention only when a resident’s behavior is dangerous to the resident or others. After the resident departed, defendant notified DSS and the police and discharged him when directed to do so by DSS a week later. Plaintiff’s argument that defendant should have imposed greater supervision or restraints to prevent the resident from leaving disregards the distinction between secure and nonsecure detention facilities and, more fundamentally, disregards the fact that defendant did not make the placement decision. …

The duty owed by a school to prevent foreseeable injuries caused by negligent supervision of its students arises “from the simple fact that a school, in assuming physical custody and control over its students, effectively takes the place of parents and guardians” … . Because this duty arises from the school’s physical custody of its students, it ceases when a student leaves the premises and the student’s parent or legal custodian is free to resume control … . Here, assuming without deciding that defendant’s residential treatment center can be analogized to a school for this purpose, the collision that injured plaintiff occurred almost a month after the resident left defendant’s physical premises, and three weeks after defendant discharged him from its care, upon the direction of the resident’s legal custodian. Any duty that may have existed while the resident was in its physical custody had long since terminated … . Mayorga v Berkshire Farm Ctr. & Servs. for Youth, 2016 NY Slip Op 01375, 3rd Dept 2-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (NON-SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A CAR DRIVEN BY A FORMER RESIDENT OF THE FACILITY)/DUTY OF CARE (NON-SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A CAR DRIVEN BY A FORMER RESIDENT OF THE FACILITY)/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (DUTY TO SUPERVISE A RESIDENT OF A NON-SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY CEASES WHEN CUSTODY CEASES)

/ ,

MINOR INACCURACIES WILL NOT PREVENT CHARACTERIZATION OF AN ARTICLE ABOUT A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AS FAIR AND TRUE.

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s libel complaint was properly dismissed. The defendant newspaper published an article about plaintiff’s conviction in a mortgage fraud prosecution which was based upon a press release from the Department of Justice (DOJ). Civil Rights Law 74 prohibits a civil action against the publisher of a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding. The Third Department explained that minor inaccuracies will not prevent the characterization of an article as fair and true:

 

Civil Rights Law § 74 provides, in relevant part, that “[a] civil action cannot be maintained against any person, firm or corporation, for the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding” and, as such, “cloaks those publishing fair and true reports of judicial proceedings with immunity from civil liability” … . “[A]n article may be characterized as ‘fair and true’ if it is substantially accurate” … . Moreover, “[a] fair and true report admits of some liberality; the exact words of every proceeding need not be given if the substance be substantially stated” … and “there is ‘no requirement that a publication report the plaintiff’s side of the controversy'” … . Minor inaccuracies are “‘not serious enough to remove [a party’s] reportage from the protection of Civil Rights Law § 74′” … .

In light of the foregoing standard, we agree with Supreme Court that defendants’ published statements were a fair and true representation of the DOJ press release, thus falling within the statutory privilege afforded by Civil Rights Law § 74. Although defendants used language that differed slightly from the DOJ press release in their article, given plaintiff’s criminal charges and convictions detailed in the press release, the language used “does not suggest more serious conduct than that actually suggested in the official proceeding” … . A liberal reading of defendants’ statements in the context of the article demonstrates that the statements are substantially accurate and, thus, a fair and true report of the DOJ press release … . Bouchard v Daily Gazette Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 01364, 3rd Dept 2-25-16

 

DEFAMATION (MINOR INACCURACIES WILL NOT PREVENT CHARACTERIZATION OF AN ARTICLE ABOUT A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AS FAIR AND TRUE)/LIBEL (MINOR INACCURACIES WILL NOT PREVENT CHARACTERIZATION OF AN ARTICLE ABOUT A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AS FAIR AND TRUE)/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW  (LIBEL, MINOR INACCURACIES WILL NOT PREVENT CHARACTERIZATION OF AN ARTICLE ABOUT A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AS FAIR AND TRUE)

/ ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO SEEK A DNA TEST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the indictment on speedy trial grounds. At issue was the delay associated with obtaining DNA test results. A delay for that purpose can be an “exceptional circumstance” justifying exclusion of the delay from the speedy trial clock, but only if the People act with due diligence. The court determined numerous other delays during the course of the proceedings demonstrated the People did not act with due diligence:

Pursuant to CPL 30.30(4)(g), periods of delay caused by “exceptional circumstances” are excludable from the time charged to the People; the People have the burden of proving the existence of an exceptional circumstance … . CPL 30.30(4)(g)(i) specifically makes excludable a continuance “granted because of the unavailability of evidence material to the People's case, when the district attorney has exercised due diligence to obtain such evidence and there are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence will become available in a reasonable period.” Under this provision, the unavailability of DNA test results can be considered an exceptional circumstance, so long as the People exercised due diligence to obtain the results … .

Acknowledging that “[t]here is no precise definition of what constitutes an exceptional circumstance,” the Court of Appeals has made clear that the exception to the rule must conform to the legislative intent of discouraging prosecutorial inaction … . People v Gonzalez, 2016 NY Slip Op 01388, 1st Dept 2-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO SEEK A DNA TEST, SPEEDY TRIAL DISMISSAL PROPER)/SPEEDY TRIAL (PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO SEEK A DNA TEST, SPEEDY TRIAL DISMISSAL PROPER)

/

NEW YORK COURTS DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DISSOLVE A FOREIGN CORPORATION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, overruling its own precedent, determined New York courts do not have jurisdiction over the dissolution of a foreign corporation:

 

We agree with the near-universal view that the courts of one state do not have the power to dissolve a business entity formed under another state’s laws. Because a business entity is a creature of state law, the state under whose law the entity was created should be the place that determines whether its existence should be terminated … . Matter of Raharney Capital, LLC v Capital Stack LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01425, 2nd Dept 2-25-16

CORPORATION LAW (NEW YORK COURTS CANNOT DISSOLVE A FOREIGN CORPORATIOIN)/JURISDICTION (NEW YORK COURT’S CANNOT DISSOLVE A FOREIGN CORPORATION)/ FOREIGN CORPORATIONS (NEW YORK COURTS CANNOT DISSOLVE)

/

PROBATE PETITION PROPERLY DISMISSED; WITNESSES DID NOT READ ATTESTATION CLAUSE, EVIDENCE SOME WILL PAGES MISSING AT TIME OF EXECUTION.

The Second Department determined the probate petition was properly dismissed. The presumption the will was properly executed was rebutted because the witnesses did not read the attestation clause before signing and there was evidence some of the pages of the will were missing at the time it was executed:

 

” A valid attestation clause raises a presumption of a will’s validity, [but] it is nonetheless incumbent upon [the] Surrogate’s Court to examine all of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the document in order to ascertain its validity'” … . In conducting this examination, ” the testimony of the attesting witnesses is entitled to great weight'” … .

Here, the attesting witnesses both testified at their depositions that they did not read the attestation clause. Under these circumstances, the attestation clause cannot carry any presumption that the will was properly executed … . The moving objectants met their prima facie burden of establishing that the purported will was not properly executed by submitting evidence that not all of the pages of the document alleged to be the decedent’s will were present at the time of the purported execution … . In opposition, the petitioner failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the evidence regarding the testamentary intent of the decedent does not raise a triable issue of fact because, with respect to due execution, ” courts do not consider the intention of the testator, but that of the legislature,'” such that the statutory requirements of due execution are determinative … . Matter of Costello, 2016 NY Slip Op 01322, 2nd Dept 2-24-16

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (WITNESSES DID NOT READ ATTESTATION CLAUSE, EVIDENCE PAGES OF WILL MISSING AT EXECUTION)/PROBATE (PROBATE PETITION PROPERLY DISMISSED, WITNESSES DID NOT READ ATTESTATION CLAUSE, PAGES OF WILL MAY HAVE BEEN MISSING AT EXECUTION)/ATTESTAION CLAUSE (WITNESS DID NOT READ, PRESUMPTION OF PROPER EXECUTION REBUTTED)/EXECUTION OF WILL (WITNESSES DID NOT READ ATTESTATION CLAUSE, EVIDENCE PAGES OF WILL MISSING AT EXECUTION)

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