You are here: / Motion for Discontinuance Without Prejudice Should Not Have Been Granted...

Search Results

/

Motion for Discontinuance Without Prejudice Should Not Have Been Granted Because It Allowed Movant to Escape Potentially Adverse Determinations

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiffs’ motion for a discontinuance without prejudice, a motion made in response to defendant’s (Parkway’s) motion to dismiss for failure to respond to Parkway’s 90-day notice:

“A motion for leave to discontinue an action without prejudice should be granted unless there are reasons which would justify its denial” … . Such a determination “rests within the sound discretion of the court,” and the motion should be granted “[i]n the absence of special circumstances, such as prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant, or other improper consequences” …, including an adverse determination of the court …, or the consequences of a potentially adverse determination … .

Here, the plaintiffs cross-moved, inter alia, for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice in response to Parkway’s separate motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to timely respond to its 90-day notice. The Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice allowed the plaintiffs to avoid the potentially adverse consequences of having failed to timely respond to Parkway’s 90-day notice (see CPLR 3216), and an adverse determination of Parkway’s motion for summary judgment. Baez v Parkway Mobile Homes Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01596, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

/

Plaintiff Need Not Submit Any Evidence In Response to a Motion to Dismiss Alleging Failure to State a Cause of Action, Even If Defendant Does

The Second Department explained how a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211(a)(7)) should be handled when evidence is submitted in support of the motion.  The court noted that the plaintiff need not submit any evidence and can stand on the pleadings alone:

“A court is, of course, permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7)” … . “If the court considers evidentiary material, the criterion then becomes whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one'” … . “Yet, affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that the plaintiff has no cause of action” … . The plaintiff “may not be penalized for failure to make an evidentiary showing in support of a complaint that states a claim on its face” … . The plaintiff may stand on his or her pleading alone to state all the necessary elements of a cognizable cause of action, and, unless the motion to dismiss is converted by the court to a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff will not be penalized because he or she has not made an evidentiary showing in support of the complaint … . In light of these standards, it is clear that the defendant’s motion should have been denied. The complaint stated a cause of action, and the defendant’s submissions did not “conclusively establish that the plaintiff has no cause of action” … . Clarke v Laidlaw Tr Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01602, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

/ , ,

Lack of Standing Defense Waived If Not Raised In Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Lack of Standing Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect–Sua Sponte Dismissal on that Ground Improper

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint seeking foreclosure and sale on the ground plaintiff lacked standing.  The defendants did not answer the complaint or make a pre-answer motion to dismiss, so the lack of standing defense was waived:

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 the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint and cancellation of the notice of pendency. Since the defendants did not answer the complaint, and did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint by the court … . HSBC Bank USA NA v Simmons, 2015 NY Slip Op 01609, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

/ , ,

Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Termination of a Firefighter Runs from the Effective Date of Termination, Not the Date of Notification

The Second Department noted that the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the termination of a probationary firefighter ran from the effective date of the termination, not the date of notification of the termination:

“[A] proceeding against a body or officer must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner” (CPLR 217[1]). Where, as here, a governmental employee is not entitled to a hearing in connection with his or her discharge, the limitations period for commencing a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge that discharge “runs from the notice of discharge or the effective date of discharge, if later” … .

Here, although the petitioner was notified of the termination of his probationary employment by letter dated September 13, 2013, and was told not to report for further shifts, the notice set the effective termination date of the petitioner’s probationary employment as September 23, 2013. Accordingly, … the statute of limitations began to run on September 23, 2013. Matter of Bruno v Greenville Fire Dist, 2015 NY Slip Op 01630, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

/

Unambiguous Release Standing Alone Warrants Summary Judgment

The Second Department explained that an unambiguous release allows a judgment as a matter of law without resort to extrinsic evidence:

“[A]bsent fraudulent inducement or concealment, misrepresentation, mutual mistake or duress, a valid release that is clear and unambiguous on its face constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim that is the subject of the release” … . “Whether the language set forth in a release unambiguously bars a particular claim is a question of law appropriately determined on a motion for summary judgment based upon the entire release and without reference to extrinsic evidence” … . Beys Specialty Inc v Euro Constr Servs Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01598, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

/ ,

Misrepresentation that Dwelling Was “Owner-Occupied” Justified Rescission of the Fire Insurance Policy

The Second Department determined the representation in a fire insurance policy that the dwelling was “owner-occupied” was a material misrepresentation which allowed rescission of the policy. Even if the property owner was unaware of the misrepresentation at the outset, he ratified the contract by permitting it to be renewed:

“[T]o establish its right to rescind an insurance policy, an insurer must demonstrate that the insured made a material misrepresentation” … . “A representation is a statement as to past or present fact, made to the insurer by, or by the authority of, the applicant for insurance or the prospective insured, at or before the making of the insurance contract as an inducement to the making thereof” (Insurance Law § 3105[a]). “A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the facts misrepresented” (…Insurance Law § 3105[b]). “To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must present documentation concerning its underwriting practices, such as underwriting manuals, bulletins, or rules pertaining to similar risks, that show that it would not have issued the same policy if the correct information had been disclosed in the application” … .

Here, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the application for insurance contained a misrepresentation regarding whether the premises would be owner-occupied and that this misrepresentation was material … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant established that the material misrepresentation is attributable to him since, even if the application for insurance had been submitted without his actual or apparent authority, he ratified the representations contained in the application by accepting the policy for owner-occupied premises and permitting it to be renewed for years thereafter on the same terms … . Morales v Castlepoint Ins Co, 2015 NY Slip Op 01618, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

/

Failure to Make a Finding of Necessity Re: Restraining Defendant at Trial with a Stun Belt Is Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—Error Must Be Preserved by Objection (No Objection Here)

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court’s failure to make a finding of necessity re: the defendant’s wearing a stun belt (a restraint device) at trial was not a mode of proceedings error.  Therefore the error must be preserved by objection.  Here the defendant consented to the restraint.  People v Cooke, 2015 NY Slip Op 01557, CtApp 2-24-15

 

/ , ,

Pre-Litigation Statements Made by an Attorney (Here In a Cease and Desist Letter) Are Protected by Qualified, Not Absolute, Privilege—Such Statements Are Privileged If Not Motivated by Malice and If Pertinent to Anticipated Litigation

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined that statements made by an attorney prior to the commencement of litigation are protected by a qualified, not absolute privilege.  A qualified privilege will not protect statements motivated by malice.  Here statements made by an attorney in a cease and desist letter were made in good faith and were pertinent to anticipated litigation, and therefore protected by qualified privilege:

… “[A]s a matter of policy, the courts confine absolute privilege to a very few situations” … . We recognize that extending privileged status to communication made prior to anticipated litigation has the potential to be abused. Thus, applying an absolute privilege to statements made during a phase prior to litigation would be problematic and unnecessary to advance the goals of encouraging communication prior to the commencement of litigation. To ensure that such communications are afforded sufficient protection the privilege should be qualified. Rather than applying the general malice standard to this pre-litigation stage, the privilege should only be applied to statements pertinent to a good-faith anticipated litigation. This requirement ensures that privilege does not protect attorneys who are seeking to bully, harass, or intimidate their client’s adversaries by threatening baseless litigation or by asserting wholly unmeritorious claims, unsupported in law and fact, in violation of counsel’s ethical obligations … . Therefore, we hold that statements made prior to the commencement of an anticipated litigation are privileged, and that the privilege is lost where a defendant proves that the statements were not pertinent to a good-faith anticipated litigation … . Front Inc v Khalil, 2015 NY Slip Op 01554, CtApp 2-24-15

 

/ , , ,

Because the Landlord Engaged in Fraud, the Four-Year Rent-Overcharge Statute of Limitations Runs Back Four Years from When the Rent Overcharge Action Was Brought/Criteria for Collateral Estoppel Explained (Not Met Here)/Question of Fact Re: Piercing Corporate Veil

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined that the four-year statute of limitations in rent-overcharge actions, where the landlord engaged in fraud, does not begin to run when the first overcharge payment is made, but rather extends back four years from when the overcharge action is brought.  Here there was evidence the landlord used a fictitious tenant and rent to justify the rent charged the tenants.  The landlord argued the tenants’ action was time-barred because it was brought more than four years after the first overcharge payment was made. In addition to the statute-of-limitations ruling, the Court of Appeals held the collateral estoppel doctrine was not correctly applied by the courts below and there was a question of fact whether the corporate veil should be pierced due to the principal’s control over the corporate-landlord and the principal’s fraudulent acts:

Julie Conason (Conason) and Geoffrey Bryant (Bryant) (collectively, tenants) are the rent-stabilized tenants of an apartment in a residential building in Manhattan. Megan Holding LLC (Megan) is the building’s owner and tenants’ landlord. … Conason asserted an overcharge claim against Megan in April 2009, almost five and one-half years after she occupied the apartment under a vacancy lease. The principal issue on this appeal is whether CPLR 213-a’s four-year statute of limitations completely bars this claim. Because of the unrefuted proof of fraud in the record, we conclude that section 213-a merely limits tenants’ recovery to those overcharges occurring during the four-year period immediately preceding Conason’s rent challenge, and that the lawful rent on the base date must be determined by using the default formula devised by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR or the agency) … . * * *

CPLR 213-a fixes a four-year statute of limitations for claims of residential rent overcharge; specifically, this provision states that

“[a]n action on a residential rent overcharge shall be commenced within four years of the first overcharge alleged and no determination of an overcharge and no award or calculation of an award of the amount of any overcharge may be based upon an overcharge having occurred more than four years before the action is commenced. This section shall preclude examination of the rental history of the housing accommodation prior to the four-year period immediately preceding the commencement of the action” (emphasis added) (CPLR 213-a; see also Rent Stabilization Law [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516 [a] [2]; Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR 2520.6 [f]; 2526.1 [a] [2]). * * *

Collateral estoppel comes into play when four conditions are fulfilled:

“(1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and decided, (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits” … . … . …

Civil Court’s findings of fraud are not entitled to preclusive effect because two of the four prerequisites for collateral estoppel are unmet: the issues in Civil Court (breach of the warranty of habitability) and Supreme Court (evidence of fraud sufficient to render the rent on the base date unreliable) are not identical (the first condition), and findings of fraud were not necessary to support the judgment entered on the April 8th order, which awarded tenants rent abatement on account of Megan’s breach of the warranty of habitability and directed Megan to remedy code violations (the fourth condition). Conason v Megan Holding LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01553, CtApp 2-24-15

 

/

Property Occupied by Owner’s Relative Living Rent-Free Does Not Qualify as “Owner-Occupied” for Purpose of a Tax Assessment Review Pursuant to Real Property Tax Law 730

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, determined petitioners’ property did not qualify as “owner-occupied” within the meaning of Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 730(1)(b)(i).  Petitioners, the owners of a single family home, did not live there but an owner’s mother lived there rent-free.  Petitioners filed a “small claims assessment review” petition seeking a tax assessment review (SCAR) under RPTL 730.  The Court of Appeals held that the meaning of “owner-occupied” could not be stretched to include a relative of an owner living rent free in the property:

The history of the SCAR program establishes that its purpose is to address the plight of small homeowners. Limiting access to the SCAR program to owners who occupy their property reasonably restricts the program to those most likely to have limited resources and who are most economically in need of the SCAR program’s expeditious and inexpensive procedures. Hence, interpreting “owner-occupied” to mean what it says, namely a property occupied by its owner, is not such a “literal and narrow interpretation[]” as to thwart the statutory purpose … . Matter of Manouel v Board of Assessors, 2015 NY Slip Op 01555, CtApp 2-24-15

 

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