You are here: / French Court Never Had Personal Jurisdiction Over New York Defendant/Service...

Search Results

/

French Court Never Had Personal Jurisdiction Over New York Defendant/Service Not Accomplished In Accordance with Hague Convention

The Second Department determined a foreign (French) judgment could not be enforced in New York because the plaintiff did not demonstrate the French court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant.  The defendant was not served in the French action in accordance with the Hague convention:

…[A] foreign country judgment is not conclusive, and thus may not be recognized, if (1) it was “rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law” or (2) “the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant” (CPLR 5304[a][1]…). A plaintiff seeking enforcement of a foreign country judgment bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that the mandatory grounds for nonrecognition do not exist … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that the Superior Court of Paris had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Pursuant to the Hague Convention, service in a signatory country may be made, inter alia, “by a method prescribed by its internal law for the service of documents in domestic actions upon persons who are within its territory” (20 UST 361[5][a]). In the United States, the methods prescribed for service under the Hague Convention are set forth in Rule 4(e)(1) and (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure … . Rule 4(e)(1) authorizes service to be made by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made,” and Rule 4(e)(2) sets forth three specific authorized methods of service. …[P]laintiff submitted the affidavit of a process server indicating that service was effected by delivering the writ of summons to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s place of business in New York. Delivery of the summons to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s actual place of business is a state law method of service authorized by CPLR 308(2), and thus permissible under Rule 4(e)(1). However, CPLR 308(2) additionally requires that the summons be mailed to either the defendant’s last known address or actual place of business, and personal jurisdiction is not acquired pursuant to CPLR 308(2) unless both the delivery and mailing requirements have been complied with … . Since the affidavit of the plaintiff’s process server did not aver that the writ of summons was additionally mailed to the defendant, it was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that service was properly effected pursuant to CPLR 308(2) …, and therefore conformed to Rule 4(e)(1). Daguerre, S.A.R.L. v Rabizadeh, 2013 NY Slip Op 08587, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

/ ,

Family Court Has No Power to Add to Terms of Remittitur

The Second Department determined Family Court had failed to comply with the terms of its remittitur.  On appeal, the Second Department previously determined that the mother’s commitment to jail for failure to comply with a court order should be reduced from six months to 30 days.  Family Court then committed the mother to 30 days but added she was not to receive allowances for good behavior.  Because the “no allowances for good behavior” was not part of the appellate remittitur, that portion of Family Court’s order was invalid:

Upon a remittitur, a court is ” without power to do anything except to obey the … mandate of the higher court'” … . Here, the Family Court erred in failing to adhere to the terms of this Court’s remittitur by including in the amended order of commitment a provision directing that the mother would not receive time allowances for good behavior. We note that, although the mother is eligible for such time allowances (see Correction Law § 804-a[1]… ), the determination as to whether they should be granted is to be made by the person in charge of the institution where she is committed (see Correction Law § 804-a[3]… . Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Nassau County, for the issuance of a second amended order providing that the mother is to be committed to the Nassau County Correctional Facility for a term of 30 days “unless sooner discharged according to law.”  Matter of Cunha v Urias, 2013 NY Slip Op 08624, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

 

/ , ,

Administrative Decision Maker, Who Had Previously Ruled Against Petitioner/Employee in Disciplinary Proceedings, Should Have Been Disqualified from Reviewing Hearing Officer’s Recommendations Made in a Related Subsequent Proceeding

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined the mayor (Bertoni), who ruled against the petitioner/employee on disciplinary charges, should have been disqualified from reviewing the hearing officer’s recommendations made in a subsequent PERB hearing.  After noting petitioner could properly be punished for testifying falsely in the hearings, the Third Department explained:

Reversal is required … because Bertoni should have been disqualified from reviewing the Hearing Officer’s recommendations.  To be sure, an administrative decision maker is not deemed biased or disqualified merely on the basis that he or she reviewed a previous administrative determination and ruled against the same employee, or presided over a prior proceeding involving a similar defense or similar charges … .  However, where, as here, there is evidence indicating that the administrative decision maker may have prejudged the matter at issue, disqualification is required… . Botsford v Bertoni, 516709, 3rd Dept 12-26-13

 

/

Untimely Summary Judgment Motion Denied—No Showing of Good Cause for the Delay/Motion Was Mislabeled as a Cross Motion

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Feinman, over a dissent, the First Department determined an untimely motion for summary judgment was properly denied because there was no explanation for the delay.  The court noted the motion was mislabeled as a cross-motion because it did not address the issues raised in the original motion, but rather addressed the allegations in the complaint:

Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]) addressed the “recurring scenario” of litigants filing late summary judgment motions, in effect “ignor[ing] statutory law, disrupt[ing] trial calendars, and undermin[ing] the goals of orderliness and efficiency in state court practice” (2 NY3d at 650). Brill holds that to rein in these late motions, brought as late as shortly before trial, CPLR 3212(a) requires that motions for summary judgment must be brought within 120 days of the filing of the note of issue or the time established by the court; where a motion is untimely, the movant must show good cause for the delay, otherwise the late motion will not be addressed … .  * * * Brill draws a bright line based on the two elements of CPLR 3212(a): the statutorily imposed or court-imposed deadlines for filing summary judgment motions, and the showing of good cause by a late movant in order for its motion to be considered. * * *

We do not hold that when a summary judgment motion is filed past the deadline, the court must automatically reject it. Rather, we enforce the law as written by the legislature, and as explained in Brill. It is up to the litigant to show the court why the rule should be flexible in the particular circumstances, or, in the words of the statute, that there is “good cause shown” for the delay. * * *

To the extent [the] motion was directed at the complaint, as opposed to any cross claims …, and was not made returnable the same day as the original motion, it was not a cross motion as defined in CPLR 2215. The rule is that a cross motion is an improper vehicle for seeking relief from a nonmoving party… . Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery, 2013 NY Slip Op 08548, 1st Dept 12-24-13

 

 

/ , ,

Planning Board’s Determination Subdivision Was Exempt from Conservation Measures Under “Grandfathering” Laws Upheld

The Third Department determined the town planning board’s approval of a final subdivision plan was proper.  The petitioners challenged the approval arguing, in part, that the town’s repeated renewal of grandfathering provisions (under which the subdivision plan was approved) was unlawful. Under the grandfathering provisions, the subdivision was deemed exempt from certain conservation measures. The Third Department disagreed:

“A town’s zoning determination is entitled to a strong presumption of validity; therefore, one who challenges such a determination bears a heavy burden of demonstrating, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt, that the determination was arbitrary and unreasonable or otherwise unlawful'” … .  While “[z]oning laws must be enacted in accordance with a comprehensive land use plan” … to establish compliance, “respondents need only show that the zoning amendment was adopted for ‘a legitimate governmental purpose'” and the amendment will not be considered arbitrary unless “‘there is no reasonable relation between the end sought to be achieved by the regulation and the means used to achieve that end'” … .  … As set forth in the comprehensive plan, the Town’s primary concerns included “ensuring the community remains a great place to live, work, and visit, attracting new industry and employment opportunities, and conserving the area’s natural resources and remaining open spaces.”  The adoption of the initial grandfathering provision clearly evidenced and furthered the Town’s interest in balancing conservation measures with community development and, particularly, the interests of property owners who had, at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted, invested substantial time and money in developing their property in accordance with previous land use laws and zoning requirements … .

Petitioners have not shown that, under the circumstances here, the challenged extensions … were inordinately lengthy as to render them “arbitrary and unreasonable or otherwise unlawful”… .  Matter of Birchwood Neighborhood Association v Planning Board of the Town of Colonie, 516284, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

/

Attorney Penalized for Making a Baseless Request for a Change of Venue

The Third Department upheld the Board’s determination that counsel should be penalized for making a baseless request for a change of venue (closer to the attorney’s office):

Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii) provides that “[i]f the [B]oard . . . determines that the proceedings in respect of [a claim for compensation], including any appeals, have been instituted or continued without reasonable ground[,] . . . reasonable attorneys’ fees shall be assessed against an attorney . . . who has instituted or continued proceedings without reasonable grounds.”  We will not disturb the Board’s imposition of a penalty for a violation of that statute so long as the determination is supported by substantial evidence … .  The Board considers a request for change of venue, which is a procedural motion, to constitute a proceeding for purposes of the statute.  Counsel was previously warned that what she cited as a “Board Rule” was actually a provision of a private legal treatise, that it did not accurately reflect the law or Board policy on venue, and that any further change of venue request filed based on that reasoning and citation “will be deemed a proceeding instituted without reasonable grounds and subject to the imposition of penalties under” the statute. Matter of Banton…, 516574, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

/

It May Be an Abuse of Discretion for the Board to Refuse to Review an Untimely Application Raising a Jurisdictional Issue/Board May Be Barred from Reopening a Closed Claim More than Seven Years After the Accident

The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board should have considered the employer’s untimely application for review because the employer raised a jurisdictional issue. The court noted that the Board may barred from reopening closed claims after more than seven years have elapsed since the accident:

“The general rule is that lack of jurisdiction to render a judgment or determination may be asserted at any time . . .” … .  Accordingly, “[w]hile the Board enjoys broad discretion to reject a late application for review,” its refusal to consider an untimely challenge to its jurisdiction may constitute an abuse of discretion … .

While the Board generally retains continuing jurisdiction over workers’ compensation claims, it is barred from reopening a claim “that has been . . .  disposed of without an award after the parties in interest have been given due notice of hearing or hearings and opportunity to be heard and for which no determination was made on the merits, [where there has been] a lapse of seven years from the date of the accident” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 123;…). Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 accordingly acts to “prevent a brand new attempt to prove up a stale claim” …, and deprives the Board of “power and jurisdiction” over such an attempt (Workers’ Compensation Law § 123…).  Given the age of the claim here and the fact that it was marked closed in 1995, the employer plausibly argues that the Board lacked jurisdiction to reopen the present claim.  Matter of VanAusdle, v NYC Police Department, 515592, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

/ , ,

No Constitutional Issue Raised by Claim that County Is Paying Too High a “Mobility Tax” Because It Does Not Receive as Much Transit Service as Other Counties Paying the Same Amount

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of two causes of action brought by a county challenging a “mobility tax” imposed upon counties served by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).  The county alleged the mobility tax was disproportionately high because it did not receive as much service as other counties paying the same amount:

The gravamen of both claims is that the funding provided to the MTA by the County is disproportionately high when compared to the transit services received by it in return.  The MTA undoubtedly provides services to the County and its residents, however, and “[e]ven a ‘flagrant unevenness’ in application” of the financing scheme used to fund the MTA is constitutionally permissible … .

Without more, the fact that the County purportedly receives “fewer benefits from the [MTA] than those received by other[s] . . . is insufficient to warrant the relief requested” … .  Plaintiffs have not pointed to any constitutional or statutory provision that is violated by this alleged misallocation of resources and, as such, the sixth and seventh causes of action present nothing more than a nonjusticiable and impermissible attempt “to substitute judicial oversight for the discretionary management of public business by public officials” … .  Supreme Court thus acted properly in granting the MTA defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Vanderhoff… v Silver, 516180, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

/ ,

Police Officer’s Actions In a Private Dispute Could Not Be Invoked Against Municipality Under Doctrine of Respondeat Superior

The Third Department determined that the doctrine of respondeat superior could not be invoked against a municipality for the actions of an off-duty police officer, even where the officer characterized his actions as an arrest.  Here the police officer injured the plaintiff in a private dispute that had nothing to do with the officer’s official duties:

“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment” … .  Thus, “where an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, his or her conduct cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment” … .  Notably, and as is relevant to the matter before us, “[a] municipality cannot be held vicariously liable for acts perpetrated by a member of its police force in the course of engaging in a personal dispute, without any genuine official purpose, whether or not the police officer characterizes such conduct as an arrest or incident to an arrest” … . Stevens v Kellar, 516875, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

/ ,

Department of Health’s Reduction of Medicaid Reimbursement to Nursing Homes Upheld

The Third Department, in a highly technical decision applying the legislature’s mathematical analyses and formulas for the determination of Medicaid reimbursement rates for two nursing homes, determined Supreme Court had erred in annulling the Department of Health’s reduction in reimbursement:

…[W]e agree that the Department was authorized by these laws to reduce both the initial and the final trend factor by one percentage point.  * * * Where, as here, “the statutory language is special or technical and does not consist of common words of clear import, courts will generally defer to the agency’s interpretative expertise unless that interpretation is unreasonable, irrational or contrary to the clear wording of the statute” … .  Additionally, as the law at issue is susceptible to different interpretations, the Department’s past practice is given great weight in determining the law’s meaning … .  Here, the record confirms that the Department has previously amended both the initial and the final CPI pursuant to legislative directives containing the phrase “trend factor projection” … .  We are therefore persuaded that the Department’s interpretation of this law is in accord with its historical practice … .  Moreover, we note that such an interpretation effectuates the Legislature’s intent to achieve cost savings in the Medicaid program… . Matter of Avenue Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Centre…, 516272, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

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