You are here: / Unopposed Motions to Enter a Default Judgment Properly Denied—Insufficient...

Search Results

/

Unopposed Motions to Enter a Default Judgment Properly Denied—Insufficient Proof of Facts Constituting the Claim

In finding the denial of plaintiff’s unopposed motions to enter a default judgment was proper, the Second Department explained the documentary requirements: “A party’s right to recover upon a defendant’s failure to appear or answer is governed by CPLR 3215… . Thus, a plaintiff moving for a default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defaulting defendant’s failure to appear or answer… . … The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of the facts constituting the claim (see CPLR 3215[f]). While a verified complaint may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim (see CPLR 3215[f]), it must contain evidentiary facts from one with personal knowledge … . [A] pleading verified by an attorney pursuant to CPLR 3020(d)(3) is insufficient to establish its merits…” [internal quotations omitted]. DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v United Gen. Tit. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 04087, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

/ ,

Counts Rendered Duplicitous by Trial Testimony/Prosecution Held to Erroneous Jury Charge to Which No Objection Was Made/Prosecutorial Misconduct Mandated a New Trial

The Second Department determined: (1) many counts of the indictment were rendered duplicitous because the complainant in this sex-offense case testified to more than one offense within the time-periods encompassed by indictment counts; (2) the prosecution must be held to the erroneous jury charge to which no objection was made (stating proof complainant was less than 14 was required when the statute says less than 15); (3) the prosecution did not prove complainant was less than 14—relevant counts dismissed; and (4) prosecutorial misconduct during summation (prosecutor acted as an unsworn witness, invited the jury to speculate, shifted the burden of proof, and made inflammatory remarks) mandated a new trial on the remaining counts:

Each count of an indictment may charge one offense only” (CPL 200.30[1]). A count in an indictment is void as duplicitous when that “single count charges more than one offense” … . Where, as here, the crime charged ” is completed by a discrete act, and where a count in the indictment is based on the repeated occurrence of that act over a course of time, the count includes more than a single offense and is duplicitous'” … . ” Even if a count is valid on its face, it is nonetheless duplicitous where the evidence presented . . . at trial makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict'” … . * * *

… [S]ince the People did not object to the erroneous jury charge, they were “bound to satisfy the heavier burden” … of proving, for counts 1 through 40, that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with a person less than 14 years old. Since the evidence demonstrated that the complainant was 14 years old during the time periods encompassed by counts 17 through 40 of the indictment, the People failed to satisfy this burden as to those counts. * * *

“[S]ummation is not an unbridled debate in which the restraints imposed at trial are cast aside so that counsel may employ all the rhetorical devices at his [or her] command” … . Rather, “[t]here are certain well-defined limits” (id. at 109). Among other things, “[the prosecutor] must stay within the four corners of the evidence’ and avoid irrelevant and inflammatory comments which have a tendency to prejudice the jury against the accused” … . A prosecutor would be well-advised not to test these limits, both so as to stay within his or her proper truth-seeking role … and so as to avoid the waste of time and expense that occurs when a new trial must be conducted solely on the basis of summation misconduct. Here, the prosecutor surpassed the “well-defined limits” … .

The prosecutor acted as an unsworn witness when, in response to defense counsel’s summation comments regarding the lack of corroborative medical evidence and the failure to call certain witnesses, the prosecutor told the jury that the uncalled witnesses had “nothing to offer” and that the medical records the prosecution failed to offer into evidence were “either irrelevant or cumulative” … . The prosecutor also improperly invited the jury to speculate as to certain matters, despite advance warning by the trial court not to engage in that line of comment … . Further, the prosecutor shifted the burden of proof by telling the jury, and repeatedly returning to this theme, that it had not “heard” any “compelling reason” for the complainant to lie, and by suggesting that the jury would have to convict the defendant if it did not “buy” the defendant’s explanation of certain evidence … . The prosecutor further improperly suggested that the jury would have to conclude that the complainant was “evil” in order to acquit the defendant … . The prosecutor repeatedly vouched for the complainant, while denigrating the defense and expressing his personal opinion as to the defendant’s lack of credibility … . Finally, the prosecutor made a number of inflammatory references to the defendant using the complainant as his “personal sex toy” … . People v Singh, 2015 NY Slip Op 04157, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

/

Single Act of Excessive Corporal Punishment Justified Neglect and Derivative Neglect Findings/Single Act of Domestic Violence Did Not Justify Neglect and Derivative Neglect Findings—No Proof the Three-Month-Old Child Was Aware of the Domestic-Violence Incident

The Second Department determined a single act of excessive corporal punishment (slamming to the floor and choking) justified a finding of neglect and derivative neglect.  However a single act of domestic violence did not justify the same findings because there was no proof the three-month-old child was aware of the domestic violence.

[Re: corporal punishment, the court wrote:] “While parents have the right to use reasonable physical force against a child in order to maintain discipline or to promote the child’s welfare, the use of excessive corporal punishment constitutes neglect … . A single incident of excessive corporal punishment may suffice to sustain a finding of neglect…” .

[Re: witnessing domestic violence, the court wrote]: “While domestic violence may be a permissible basis upon which to make a finding of neglect, [n]ot every child exposed to domestic violence is at risk of impairment'” … . Here, although there was testimony that the father engaged in an act of domestic violence against the mother while [the child], then three months old, was somewhere in the room, there is no evidence that the child saw, or was aware of, what happened, or that his emotional condition was impaired or placed in imminent danger of impairment by it …”. Matter of Dalia G. (Frank B.), 2015 NY Slip Op 04127, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

/ ,

Mother’s Petition to Relocate Should Not Have Been Denied—Analytical Criteria Described

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have denied mother’s petition to relocate. The analytical criteria were described as: “When reviewing a custodial parent’s request for permission to relocate, the court’s primary focus must be on the best interests of the child … . Although each custodial parent’s request for relocation must be decided on its own merits, the factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the children and each parent, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the children’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the lives of the custodial parent and the children may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the children through suitable visitation arrangements … . In relocation proceedings, this [the appellate court’s] authority is as broad as that of the hearing court, and a relocation determination will not be permitted to stand unless it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record …”. [quotations omitted] Matter of DeCillis v DeCillis, 2015 NY Slip Op 04126, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

/ ,

Online Promotion Which Offered a Coupon to Persons Who Provided His or Her Email Address Did Not Constitute an “Offer” Which Could Be “Accepted” to Create a Contract/In Light of the Disclaimers the Promotion Was Not “Deceptive” and Plaintiff Suffered No “Actual Injury” within the Meaning of the General Business Law

Plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging an act of deception in an online business promotion.  Defendants “offered to provide to visitors to their website who entered their email address a $1 coupon toward the purchase of their products and further promotional materials.” The complaint alleged the members of the class provided their email addresses but never received a coupon. The Second Department determined the complaint, which alleged breach of contract and a violation of General Business Law 349, was properly dismissed. Because the website indicated the supply of coupons was limited, there was no clearcut “offer” which could form a contract upon acceptance. The online promotion constituted only an “invitation for offers.” Because of the disclaimers, the promotion was not “deceptive” within the meaning of General Business Law 349. Nor did the plaintiff suffer any “actual injury” within the meaning of General Business Law 349:

…[T]he defendants made a prima facie showing that the online promotion did not constitute an offer. Rather, it constituted only an invitation for offers, in light of the fact that the promotion expressly stated that the supply of coupons was “limited.” In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, extrinsic evidence was not admissible to interpret the promotional materials under the circumstances herein … . The record thus showed as a matter of law that the promotion did not create the power of acceptance for consumers and, consequently, no unilateral contract was formed… . * * *

[Re: General Business Law 349], in addition to showing that the conduct was consumer oriented, “[a] prima facie case requires . . . a showing that [the] defendant is engaging in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof” … . “Whether a representation or an omission, the test is whether the allegedly deceptive practice is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances'” … . A plaintiff must also show that he or she suffered an actual injury, as a result of the deceptive act or practice… . …

…[T]he defendants … showed … that the plaintiff did not suffer any “actual injury,” for purposes of the General Business Law § 349 cause of action. To recover damages under General Business Law § 349, a plaintiff need not prove intent to defraud or justifiable reliance … . The plaintiff may not “set[ ] forth deception as both act and injury” … . Here, the record showed as a matter of law that the plaintiff suffered no actual injury, apart from the alleged deceptive act itself … . Amalfitano v NBTY, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04077, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

/ , ,

A Request for an Admission Which Goes to the Heart of the Litigation Is Improper—Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Withdraw Its Admission that Its Employee Was Acting Within the Scope of His Employment When a Vehicle Accident Occurred

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have allowed defendant to withdraw admissions made in response to a notice to admit. Plaintiff was involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by an employee of defendant, Islip Pizza.  In response to a notice to admit, the defendant stated that the employee was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the collision. Because defendant’s liability, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, depended entirely on whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment, the admission went to the heart of the matters at issue. A request for an admission which deals with an ultimate conclusion is improper (CPLR 3123 (a)). Defendant should have been allowed to withdraw it (CPLR 3123 (b)):

Under CPLR 3123(a), a party may serve upon another party a written request that it admit, among other things, “the truth of any matters of fact set forth in the request, as to which the party requesting the admission reasonably believes there can be no substantial dispute at the trial and which are within the knowledge of such other party or can be ascertained by him upon reasonable inquiry” (CPLR 3123[a]). The legislative policy underlying CPLR 3123(a) is to promote efficiency in the litigation process by “eliminat[ing] from the issues in litigation matters which will not be in dispute at trial. It is not intended to cover ultimate conclusions, which can only be made after a full and complete trial. A notice to admit which goes to the heart of the matters at issue is improper” … . Furthermore, under CPLR 3123(b), a court may at any time permit a party to amend or withdraw any admission “on such terms as may be just” (CPLR 3123[b]…).  Altman v Kelly, 2015 NY Slip Op 04076, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

/

Court Should Not Have Dismissed for “Neglect to Proceed”—Criteria Explained

Noting that CPLR 3216 is extremely forgiving and never requires dismissal based on “neglect to proceed,” the Second Department determined Supreme Court, under the facts, should not have dismissed the action.  A dual showing of a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action is not strictly necessary to avoid dismissal:

While generally, the Supreme Court is prohibited from dismissing an action based on neglect to proceed whenever the plaintiff has shown a justifiable excuse for the delay in the prosecution of the action and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216[e]…) , such a dual showing is not strictly necessary to avoid dismissal of the action … .

Under the circumstances of this case, including the minimal 4-day delay in filing the note of issue, the fact that the defendants demanded additional discovery subsequent to the court’s certification order containing the 90-day demand, the absence of any claim of prejudice, and the lack of evidence of a pattern of persistent neglect and delay in prosecuting the action or of any intent to abandon the action, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to excuse the plaintiffs’ failure to meet the deadline for filing the note of issue … . Rossi v Scheinbach, 2015 NY Slip Op 04110, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

/ , ,

Corporate Officer May Be Personally Liable for Torts Committed in the Performance of Corporate Duties/Criteria for Determining a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Where Documentary Evidence Is Submitted) Explained

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action was properly denied.  Plaintiff alleged he tripped and fell over a hole left when a for sale sign was removed. The defendant moved to dismiss alleging the property was owned by the corporation of which defendant was the sole shareholder.  The Second Department noted that an officer of a corporation may be personally liable for torts committed in the performance of corporate duties. The court explained its role in determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where documentary evidence is submitted: “When a defendant submits evidence in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion has not been converted into one for summary judgment, the criterion is whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether he or she has stated one … . “[U]nless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, . . . dismissal should not eventuate… ‘. [quotations omitted] Orlando v New York Homes By J & J Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04104, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

/ ,

Admissions in Pleadings, Including the Failure to Deny an Allegation, Are Always In Evidence for All Purposes in a Trial

In a trial stemming from an automobile accident, during deliberations the jury asked if there was any evidence a defendant, Kahn, was the driver of one of the vehicles.  The judge responded “no.”  Ultimately the jury found in favor of the defendant.  The Second Department determined the judge’s telling the jury there was no evidence the defendant was the driver was reversible error. The defendant’s answer to the complaint included admissions re: operation.  The court noted that the failure to deny an allegation in a complaint is an admission. Pleadings “are always in evidence for all purposes of the trial of an action:”

The Supreme Court committed reversible error when it advised the jury that there was no evidence in this case that would answer its question of whether Khan was the driver of the taxicab in which the plaintiff was a passenger. The failure to deny an allegation in a complaint constitutes an admission to the truth of that allegation (see CPLR 3018[a]…). “Facts admitted in a party’s pleadings constitute formal judicial admissions, and are conclusive of the facts admitted in the action in which they are made” … . Moreover, “admissions . . . in pleadings are always in evidence for all the purposes of the trial of [an] action” … . In response to the jury’s inquiry about whether Khan was the driver, the court should have informed the jury of Khan’s and Ali’s admissions in their answer concerning their operation and ownership of a certain vehicle which was involved in an accident … on the same date as the plaintiff’s accident and at the same location, so that the jury could draw its own inferences on this question. DeSouza v Khan, 2015 NY Slip Op 04085, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

/

Question of Fact Whether Property Owners Owed a Duty to Protect Plaintiff from an Assault During a Fair on the Premises

he Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the defendants, who held a fair on their premises, were liable to plaintiff who was attacked by two teenage boys during the fair. There was evidence a security guard had been notified that a fight was about to break out and did nothing:

“While landowners in general have a duty to act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on their property, an owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such persons and is reasonably aware of the need for such control” … . Thus, the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults … .

Here, the church defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence which demonstrated that the infant plaintiff’s injuries resulted from an unexpected and unforeseeable assault … . However, in opposition, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the assault of the infant plaintiff was unexpected and unforeseeable. The plaintiffs presented a transcript of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff’s girlfriend, who explained that, approximately 30 minutes before the subject incident, she spoke to a security guard at the fair and advised him that there was a “confrontation” and that it was “getting worse.” Bisignano v Raabe, 2015 NY Slip Op 04081, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

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