You are here: / “Law of the Case” Doctrine Did Not Apply—Dismissal of Affirmative Def...

Search Results

/

“Law of the Case” Doctrine Did Not Apply—Dismissal of Affirmative Defense Did Not Constitute Full Litigation of the Issue

In a property-line dispute, the Second Department reversed Supreme Court ruling that the location of the fence on plaintiff’s property was the “law of the case.”  The “law of the case” doctrine was imposed by Supreme Court based on the dismissal of the title insurance company’s affirmative defense which claimed the fence was on defendant’s land.  The Second Department wrote:

“The doctrine of the law of the case’ is a rule of practice, an articulation of sound policy that, when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned” …  The doctrine “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in [a] prior decision” …, “and to the same questions presented in the same case” … . “Like claim preclusion and issue preclusion, preclusion under the law of the case contemplates that the parties had a full and fair’ opportunity to litigate the initial determination” … .  Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the prior order …which granted [the] motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss …, did not necessarily resolve the issue of whether the fence was located on the plaintiffs’ property or the defendants’ property, as the parties did not have an opportunity to fully litigate that issue… . Ramanathan v Aharon, 2013 NY Slip Op 05621, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

/

Criteria for Avoiding Dismissal After Failure to Comply with 90-Day Notice to Serve and File Note of Issue Explained

The Second Department explained the criteria for avoiding dismissal for failure to comply with a 90-day notice to serve and file a note of issue:

Here, the defendant … did not serve a 90-day demand, but relied instead on an order dated June 13, 2008, which instructed the plaintiffs that the failure to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days would result in dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216. This order had the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 … .To avoid the sanction of dismissal, the plaintiffs were initially required to comply with the order dated June 13, 2008, either by serving and filing a timely note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to vacate the order or to extend the 90-day period pursuant to CPLR 2004 … . Having failed to pursue either of the foregoing options, the plaintiffs were obligated to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and a potentially meritorious cause of action to avoid the sanction of dismissal (see CPLR 3216[e]…).  Griffith v Wray, 2013 NY Slip Op 05615, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

/

Criteria for Disclosure from Nonparty Witness

The Second Department explained the criteria for disclosure from a nonparty witness:

A party seeking disclosure from a nonparty witness must demonstrate that the disclosure sought is material and necessary, and must set forth the “circumstances or reasons” why disclosure is “sought or required” from such nonparty witness (CPLR 3101[a][4]…). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that additional testimony from the nonparty witnesses or the information sought would be material and necessary to the prosecution of this case (see CPLR 3101[a]…).  Dicenso v Wallin, 2013 NY Slip Op 05612, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

/

Law Office Failure Was Valid Excuse for Default—Answer Deemed Served in Absence of Cross Motion

The Second Department determined law office failure constituted a valid excuse for a defendant’s default and defendant’s answer, which was attached to the papers submitted in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, would be deemed served in the absence of a cross motion seeking leave to file a late answer:

In its discretion, the court may accept law office failure as an excuse (see CPLR 2005;… . The claim of law office failure should, however, be supported by a “detailed and credible” explanation of the default or defaults at issue … . Law office failure should not be excused where allegations of law office failure are conclusory and unsubstantiated…. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting the defendant’s excuse of law office failure, as the defendant provided detailed affidavits of personnel explaining the delay in timely serving an answer.  Blake v United States of Am, 2013 NY Slip 05609, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

/ ,

Consolidation and Assignment of Mortgages Does Not Affect Validity of Original Mortgages

The Second Department explained that the consolidation and assignment of mortgages did not affect the validity of the original mortgages:

In the instant matter, the plaintiff increased the outstanding balance of the first mortgage by borrowing the second mortgage loan and executing the CEMA [Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement].  Although the CEMA  created a single mortgage lien, “[a] consolidation of outstanding loans is a device intended for the convenience of only the contracting parties” and “cannot impair liens in favor of parties that are not the contracting parties, which retain their independent force and effect” … . Where, as here, balances of first mortgage loans are increased with second mortgage loans and CEMAs are executed to consolidate the mortgages into single liens, the first notes and mortgages still exist and may be assigned to other lenders … . Further, an assignment of a loan obligation means that the obligation has been transferred, not paid in full and, thus, contrary to the plaintiff’s allegation, does not render the obligation satisfied and discharged.  Benson v Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05606, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

/ , ,

Teacher’s Unsatisfactory Performance Evaluation Annulled—No Supporting Documentation

In an Article 78 proceeding, the First Department reversed the Board of Education’s denial of a teacher’s petition to annul an unsatisfactory performance evaluation because there was no longer any documentation substantiating any instances of corporal punishment in the teacher’s file.  Disciplinary letters concerning allegations of corporal punishment had previously been removed from the teacher’s file by stipulation.  The First Department explained the relevant rules as follows:

It is undisputed that Part 2(I) of DOE’s Human Resources Handbook “Rating Pedagogical Staff Members” provides (1) that a teacher’s evaluation must be supported by documentation in his/her personnel file; (2) that documentation removed from a file through grievance procedures is inadmissible in performance reviews; and (3) that documentation not addressed directly to a teacher is inadmissible in performance reviews, unless it is attached to and part of another document appropriately placed in the teacher’s file. Moreover, materials placed in a teacher’s personnel file must include a signature and date line for the teacher, evidencing that she has read the material and understands that it will be placed in the file, as well as a signature and date line for a witness; unsigned documents are inadmissible in evaluation reviews.  Matter of Friedman v Board of Educ of the City Sch Dist of the City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05598, 1st Dept 8-13-13

 

/

Dismissal of Federal Action Precluded Related Action in State Court—Res Judicata, Privity under Res Judicata Doctrine, Effect of Initial Forum Choice, and “First-in-Time” Rule Discussed

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, the First Department determined that Supreme Court should have dismissed the state complaint because the dismissal of the related federal complaint controlled under the doctrine of res judicata.  The lawsuit was brought by the insurer (Syncora) of mortgage-backed securities issued by the defendant (JP Morgan [formerly known as Bear Stearns]). Syncora first sued in federal court where the action was dismissed based on the findings that the fraud allegations Syncora sought to add to the complaint were untimely and Syncora did not have standing because it was neither a buyer or a seller of the relevant securities.  Syncora then filed the state action asserting the same claims rejected as untimely by the federal court.  The opinion addresses several distinct issues: (1) the flexibility of the concept of “privity” in applying the doctrine of res judicata to the parties and “those in privity” with the parties; (2) a finding of “privity” can be based upon the plaintiff’s allegations about the relationship between a party and another entity; (3) a party which makes a strategic decision to first bring an action in one jurisdiction “is bound by the effects of the path it charted…”; and (4) dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) in favor of the earlier-filed federal action was warranted under New York’s “first-in-time” rule.  Syncora Guar Inc v JP Morgan Sec LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05602, 1st Dept, 8-13-13

 

/

Intervention Not Available to Vacate a Default Judgment—Default Judgment is Not on the Merits and Therefore Has No Res Judicata Effect on Putative Intervenors

The First Department determined a motion to intervene in an action which ended in a default judgment should not have been granted.  Plaintiff sued defendant, which defaulted. Defendant had transferred its assets to the parties seeking to intervene to vacate the default.  Plaintiff had sued the intervenors alleging the transfer of assets from the defendant to the intervenors was fraudulent (the “supplemental proceeding”). The First Department explained:

“[T]he potentially binding nature of the judgment on the proposed intervenor is the most heavily weighted factor in determining whether to permit intervention” … .Here, however, intervenors cannot intervene by arguing that the default judgment has a res judicata effect on the supplemental proceeding and adversely affects their rights in that proceeding. The default judgment has no res judicata effect on intervenors because a default is not a determination on the merits as is necessary to invoke that doctrine … . Likewise, intervenors were not parties to the default action … .  Further, plaintiffs did not obtain the default judgment through fraud or through any other wrongdoing… .  Intervenors’ right to act for defendant ended with the 2007 sale—an event that occurred four years before the clerk entered the default judgment against [defendant].  Amalgamated Bank v Helmsley-Spear, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05600, 1st Dept 8-13-13

 

/

Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint Should Have Been Denied—Question of Fact Re: Whether Spanish Document Was a Judgment

The First Department determined that a motion brought pursuant to CPLR 3213 to enforce a Spanish court’s award of damages against the defendant should not have been granted.  Experts disagreed about whether the Spanish document was an enforceable judgment.  The First Department explained the criteria for recognizing foreign decrees (CPLR 5302) and for determining a motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213):

A motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213) is based on an “instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment.” The statute allows a plaintiff an expedited procedure for entry of a judgment by filing and service of a summons and a set of motion papers that contain sufficient evidentiary detail for the plaintiff to establish entitlement to summary judgment (see David D. Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3213:8).

CPLR 5302 provides that New York will recognize foreign decrees that are “final, conclusive and enforceable where rendered even though an appeal therefrom is pending.” Here, the parties’ Spanish law experts disagree as to whether the document here, denominated a “ruling” (“auto” in Spanish), is enforceable as a judgment. *  *  *

The conflicting evidence as to whether the ruling is final, conclusive and enforceable in Spain precludes plaintiff from obtaining an accelerated judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213.  Sea Trade Mar Corp v Coutsodontis, 2013 NY Slip Op 05599, 1st Dept 8-13-13

 

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