You are here: / Failure to Link Specific Monetary Loss to Acts or Omissions of the Attorneys...

Search Results

/ , ,

Failure to Link Specific Monetary Loss to Acts or Omissions of the Attorneys Required Dismissal

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s legal malpractice action should have been dismissed because the plaintiff did not demonstrate a specific monetary loss was proximately caused by the negligence of the attorneys. Plaintiff alleged the attorneys failed to ensure that a note, guarantee and mortgage were enforceable against Nina, who disaffirmed liability on the ground of legal incapacity:

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages … . To establish causation, the plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, “but for the attorney’s negligence” … .

…The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the amount it could or would have collected if the note, the guaranty, and mortgage had been enforceable against Nina … . In addition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was unable to recover the amounts due under the note by other legal means available to it under the terms of the note and guaranty, or that it was unable to obtain equitable relief from Nina even after she disaffirmed liability on the ground of legal incapacity (see Restatement [Second] of Contracts § 14, Comments b, c; see also Restatement of Restitution § 139). Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the extent to which it would have been unable to enforce the note and the guaranty after it was disavowed by Nina, and the precise extent to which it would have been able to recover had the note, the guaranty, and the mortgage been enforceable against her, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that any negligence on the part of [the attorneys] was a proximate cause of actual and ascertainable damages … . Quantum Corporate Funding, Ltd. v Ellis, 2015 NY Slip Op 02104, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/ ,

Stipulation of Settlement Not Enforceable/All Material Terms Not Included

The Second Department determined the purported stipulation of settlement did not meet the standards set forth in CPLR 2104:

Absent the formalities required by statute, a stipulation of settlement is not enforceable (see CPLR 2104…). Pursuant to CPLR 2104, “[a]n agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one made between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered.” The stipulation must be “definite and complete” … , and all material terms must be included … .

In this case, the alleged written stipulation of settlement …, entitled “Agreement in Principle,” was not signed by all the parties to the litigation, and the agreement did not state that the two signatories to the agreement intended to bind all the parties to the agreement’s terms. Further, as a material term of the agreement at issue was contingent upon the parties’ executing a formal agreement, the agreement constituted a mere agreement to agree, which is unenforceable … . De Well Container Shipping Corp. v Mingwei Guo, 2015 NY Slip Op 02090, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/

Even Employees “Working Off the Books” Are Barred from Suing Employer in Tort

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s suit against his employer was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law, even if plaintiff was “working off the books:”

Workers’ compensation benefits are [t]he sole and exclusive remedy of an employee against his employer for injuries in the course of employment” … . “This precludes suits against an employer for injuries in the course of employment” … . “[W]henever it appears or will appear from a plaintiff’s pleading, bill of particulars or the facts that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, the obligation of alleging and, in any event, of proving noncoverage falls on the plaintiff” … .

Here, in support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants presented evidence that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant N.B. Painting and Decorating Corp. (hereinafter N.B. Painting), who was injured in the course of his employment, and that N.B Painting maintained a Workers’ Compensation policy on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the defendants established prima facie that the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 barred the plaintiff from seeking a recovery in tort against N.B. Painting … .

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “[A]ll employees of an employer are deemed covered by the employer’s workers’ compensation policy, regardless of whether an employee may have been working off the books’, where the employer has secured a policy of insurance coverage” … . De Los Santos v Butkovich, 2015 NY Slip Op 02089, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/ ,

Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Not Justified/Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect

In a foreclosure action, the Second Department noted that Supreme Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, dismiss the complaint, even if the plaintiff did not have standing, which is not a jurisdictional defect.  (The Second Department determined the plaintiff did in fact have standing.):

The Supreme Court also erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint. “A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Even if the plaintiff had lacked standing it would not have constituted a jurisdictional defect and would not warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Chow Ming Tung, 2015 NY Slip Op 02087, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/

Amendment of Summons and Complaint after the Statute of Limitations Has Run

In affirming the amendment of a summons and complaint, (apparently) after the running of the statute of limitations, the Second Department explained the relevant law:

CPLR 305(c) authorizes the court, in its discretion, to “allow any summons or proof of service of a summons to be amended, if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons issued is not prejudiced.” Where the motion is to cure “a misnomer in the description of a party defendant,” it should be granted even after the statute of limitations has run where “(1) there is evidence that the correct defendant (misnamed in the original process) has in fact been properly served, and (2) the correct defendant would not be prejudiced by granting the amendment sought” … . “Such amendments are permitted where the correct party defendant has been served with process, but under a misnomer, and where the misnomer could not possibly have misled the defendant concerning who it was that the plaintiff was in fact seeking to sue” … . “However, while CPLR 305(c) may be utilized to correct the name of an existing defendant . . . it cannot be used by a party as a device to add or substitute a party defendant'” … , and it may not be used “to proceed against an entirely new defendant, who was not served, after the expiration of the statute of limitations” … . Sanders v 230fa, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02107, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/ , ,

Invoices Together with Purchase Orders Created an Agreement to a Reduced Sales-Contract Statute of Limitations

The Second Department determined the sales-contract statute of limitations was validly reduced from four years to one year by the terms of invoices:

While UCC 2-725(1) generally provides that a cause of action alleging breach of a sales contract must be commenced within four years after it has accrued, that provision also allows the parties to a sales contract to “reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year” (UCC 2-725[1]…). Here, the defendants met their initial burden by demonstrating that their invoices containing the one-year limitation period constituted an acceptance that, together with the plaintiff’s purchase order, was effective in forming a contract, and that the one-year limitation period, an additional term set forth in the invoices, was presumed to have become part of this contract between the parties unless one of the three exceptions in UCC 2-207(2) applied (see UCC 2-207[1], [2]…). It is undisputed that the plaintiff’s action was not commenced within one year from the alleged breach, as required by the additional term. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff, as the party opposing the inclusion of the additional term, to raise a question of fact as to whether one of the three exceptions under UCC 2-207(2) was applicable … . The plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the abbreviated period of limitation was not against public policy (see CPLR 201; UCC 2-725[1]…). ” Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced'” … . ” Where the party against which an abbreviated Statute of Limitations is sought to be enforced does not demonstrate duress, fraud, or misrepresentations in regard to its agreement to the shortened period, it is assumed that the term was voluntarily agreed to'” … . State of Narrow Fabric, Inc. v UNIFI, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02110, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

/ , ,

(1) The Effect of Minor Discrepancies Re: the Submissions Required by a Standby Letter of Credit (SLC) (2) The Criteria for Interpreting an SLC (3) the Nature of an SLC and (4) the “Independence Principle” as Applied to an SLC Discussed in Some Depth

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, reversed Supreme Court and determined the issuer of standby letters of credit (SLC) was required to honor them.  The opinion is detailed and fact-based.  Among the legal issues discussed are: (1) minor discrepancies re: the documents required to be submitted (for a drawdown) by the terms of an SLC do not violate the “strict compliance” rule; (2) how to interpret an SLC; (3) the nature of an SLC  (versus a guaranty); and (4) the “Independence Principle” which requires that an SLC be deemed separate and distinct from the other contractual agreements underlying the transaction:

Under New York law, in order to recover on its claim that the issuer wrongfully refused to honor its request to draw down on a letter of credit, the beneficiary must prove that it strictly complied with the terms of the letter of credit … . “The corollary to the rule of strict compliance is that the requirements in letters of credit must be explicit, and that all ambiguities are construed against the [issuer]” … . The reasoning is that “[s]ince the beneficiary must comply strictly with the requirements of the letter, it must know precisely and unequivocally what those requirements are” … . “Where a letter of credit is fairly susceptible of two constructions, one of which makes fair, customary and one which prudent men would naturally enter into, while the other makes it inequitable, the former interpretation must be preferred to the latter, and a construction rendering the contract possible of performance will be preferred to one which renders its performance impossible or meaningless” … . * * *

There are three parties to an SLC: the applicant who requests the SLC; the beneficiary to whom payment is due upon the presentation of the documents required by the SLC; and the issuer which obligates itself to honor the SLC and make payment when presented with the documents the SLC requires. In turn, there are three corresponding agreements: the agreement between the applicant and the beneficiary, which creates the basis for the SLC; the agreement between the issuer and the applicant; and the SLC itself … .

“[A] fundamental principle governing these transactions is the doctrine of independent contracts, [which] provides that the issuing bank’s obligation to honor drafts drawn on a letter of credit by the beneficiary is separate and independent from any obligation of its customer to the beneficiary under the … contract and separate as well from any obligation of the issuer to its customer under their agreement” … .

From the beneficiary’s perspective, the independence principle makes a letter of credit superior to a normal surety bond or guaranty because the issuer is primarily liable and is precluded from asserting defenses that an ordinary guarantor could assert. Indeed, “a letter of credit would lose its commercial vitality if before honoring drafts the issuer could look beyond the terms of the credit to the underlying contractual controversy or performance between its customer and the beneficiary”… . BasicNet S.P.A. v CFP Servs. Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 02080, 1st Dept 3-17-15

 

/ ,

Even Though the People Indicated They Were Not Ready for Trial After Filing a Certificate of Readiness, the Presumption the Statement of Readiness Was Accurate and Truthful When Made Was Not Rebutted/How to Interpret a Plurality Opinion by the Court of Appeals Explained

The First Department determined the People’s off-calendar statement of readiness was not illusory and, therefore, the defendant’s speedy-trial motion was properly denied. The First Department explained how it interpreted the Court of Appeals decision in People v Sibbles, 22 NY3d 1174, which included two three-judge concurrences, one by Judge Lippman and one by Judge Graffeo:

The three judge concurrence by Chief Judge Lippman “would hold that, if challenged, the People must demonstrate that some exceptional fact or circumstance arose after their declaration of readiness so as to render them presently not ready for trial” at the next court appearance after filing the certificate (22 NY3d at 1178). Chief Judge Lippman found that the People’s desire to strengthen their case did not satisfy this requirement.

The three judge concurrence by Judge Graffeo “would decide th[e] case on a narrower basis” (22 NY3d at 1179). While recognizing established precedent that the requirement of actual readiness under CPL 30.30 “will be met unless there is proof that the readiness statement did not accurately reflect the People’s position'”(id. at 1180, quoting People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 799 [1998]) and that “there is a presumption that a statement of readiness is truthful and accurate” (22 NY3d at 1180), Judge Graffeo found the statement of readiness “illusory” because “[t]he People initially declared that they were ready for trial on February 22 but within days sought copies of the injured officer’s medical records,” admitted at the next calendar call that they “were not in fact ready to proceed because they were continuing their investigation” and that they “needed to examine the medical records to decide if they would pursue introduction of the records into evidence at trial”, and then “gave no explanation for the change in circumstances between the initial statement of readiness and the[ir] subsequent admission that the[y] … were not ready to proceed without the medical records” (22 NY3d at 1181).

Following analogous precedent pertaining to plurality opinions by the United States Supreme Court, we apply the narrower approach of Judge Graffeo, which leaves intact well- settled law that a post-certificate assertion that the People are not ready does not, by itself, vitiate the previously filed certificate of readiness … . * * *

[Here], unlike, Sibblies, there is no “proof that the readiness statement did not accurately reflect the People’s position,” so as to render the prior statement of readiness illusory (Sibblies, 22 NY3d at 1180 …). Rather, defense counsel merely speculated that the certificate of readiness was illusory because the People announced that they were not ready at the next court appearance after it was filed, which is insufficient to rebut the presumption that the certificate of readiness was accurate and truthful … . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 02042, 1st Dept 3-17-15

 

/ ,

Corporation Is a Proper Respondent in an Article 78/Mandamus to Compel Proceeding

The Third Department determined that respondent corporation (CGFNS), which contracted with the state to provide credential verification services to the Department of Education for foreign-trained nurses, was a proper respondent in an Article 78/mandamus to compel proceeding.  The proceeding was brought by the foreign nursing school after CGFNS indicated it could not verify the school’s credentials:

CGFNS argues that it is not a “body or officer” subject to CPLR article 78 (CPLR 7802 [a]) and that it did not make a “determination” reviewable in this proceeding (CPLR 7803 [3]). CPLR 7802 (a) defines a “body or officer” against whom a CPLR article 78 proceeding may be instituted to include, as relevant here, “every court, tribunal, board, [or] corporation” (emphasis added). CGFNS is a not-for-profit corporation. Courts have recognized that corporations, both public and private, may be subject to CPLR article 78 as quasi-governmental bodies because they are “beholden to the [s]tate for their franchise or charter or the exercise of their functions” (… Siegel, NY Prac § 558 at 989; § 564 at 1001-1002 [5th ed 2011]). As a corporate entity, CGFNS is a “body or officer” subject to a writ of mandamus under CPLR article 78 (CPLR 7802 [a]; see CPLR 7803 [1], [3]…). Matter of American Univ. of Antigua v CGFNS Intl., 2015 NY Slip Op 02028, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

/ ,

Criteria for Strip and Cavity Search Met

The Third Department determined the circumstances justified a strip search and a visual cavity search of the defendant. The court explained the relevant criteria:

…[T]he principles governing strip searches and body cavity examinations are set forth in People v Hall (10 NY3d 303 [2008], cert denied 555 US 938 [2008]). Insofar as is relevant here, “a strip search must be founded on a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing evidence underneath clothing and the search must be conducted in a reasonable manner. To advance to . . . a visual cavity inspection, the police must have a specific, articulable factual basis supporting a reasonable suspicion to believe the arrestee [has] secreted evidence inside a body cavity and the [ensuing] visual inspection must be conducted reasonably” … . Although the police cannot routinely subject all drug arrestees to visual cavity inspections, the police are permitted — in the context of formulating the particularized factual basis required for such inspections — “to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might well elude an untrained person”… . People v Cogdell, 2015 NY Slip Op 106031, 3rd Dept 3-12-15

 

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