You are here: / THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY FOR AN OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT...

Search Results

/

THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY FOR AN OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS A MERELY TECHNICAL DEFECT WHICH DID NOT PREVENT THE COURT FROM CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the absence of a certificate of conformity for an out-of-state affidavit of service did not prevent the court from considering the affidavit in this dispute about the legitimacy of service of process in Nevada:

Ameritek’s [defendant’s] argument that the lack of a certificate of conformity prevents the affidavit of service from being considered is unavailing. Even if such a finding may not be made until after the court’s jurisdiction over Ameritek has been established … , any defects resulting from the absence of the certificate of conformity in this instance are merely technical and do not raise questions about “the likelihood that the summons and complaint will reach defendant and inform him that he is being sued” … . GS Capital Partners, LLC v Ameritek Ventures, 2023 NY Slip Op 01942, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: The absence of a certificate of conformity for an out-of-state affidavit of service did not prevent the court from considering the affidavit.

 

/ ,

IN 2011 PLAINTIFF WITHDREW THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBSEQUENTLY ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS FOR YEARS; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED AND TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action for a money judgment should not have been dismissed as abandoned and time-barred. In 2011 plaintiff withdrew its motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, without prejudice, and continued settlement negotiations for years, demonstrating plaintiff did not intend to abandon the lawsuit:

Supreme Court incorrectly determined that the action had been rendered a nullity by plaintiff’s withdrawal of his initial summons and motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213), as the parties’ course of conduct reflected an understanding that plaintiff was not discontinuing or abandoning the action. Plaintiff withdrew the summons and motion “without prejudice” after reaching a settlement agreement with Progressive and, by contrast, the settlement agreement expressly stated that the matter would be discontinued “with prejudice” upon Progressive’s full and complete compliance with its payment obligations. After Progressive defaulted, plaintiff and defendant, participated in further settlement discussions, court conferences, and motion practice for years before defendant invoked the argument that the action had been discontinued or abandoned. Rizzo v Progressive Capital Solutions, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01948, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: Although plaintiff withdrew the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, without prejudice, in 2011, plaintiff continued settlement negotiations for years, demonstrating plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action. The dismissal of the action as abandoned was reversed.

 

/

THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST DEGREE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the second degree murder counts must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of defendant’s murder first degree convictions:

… [W]e agree with defendant’s contention that his convictions for second degree murder (counts 2 and 3) must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of his convictions for murder in the first degree (counts 7, 8 and 9) (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b]). People v Burton, 2023 NY Slip Op 01919, Third Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: Here the murder second degree convictions were reversed as inclusory concurrent counts of the murder first degree convictions.

 

/ , ,

THE DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH BREACHED A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE ENTITLING THE INSURER TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONCOVERAGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff insurer was entitled to summary judgment for a declaratory judgment of noncoverage because the defendants did not appear at the scheduled Examinations Under Oath (EUOs):

Plaintiff insurer seeks a declaratory judgment of noncoverage based, among other things, on its allegations that defendants Munoz, Cameron, and Santiago (collectively, the claimants) each breached a condition precedent to coverage by failing to appear for properly noticed Examinations Under Oath (EUOs). In support of its motion for a default judgment against the defaulting defendants, plaintiff demonstrated through admissible evidence that the claimants each breached a condition precedent to coverage by failing to appear for properly and timely noticed EUOs … . The documentary evidence shows that plaintiff sent the EUO scheduling letters to the claimants within 15 business days of receiving the prescribed verification forms (in this case, NF-3 forms), as required … . Contrary to the motion court’s calculation, the 15-day period starts with receipt of the NF-3 forms, not the NF-2 Application for No-Fault Benefits forms … . State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Soliman, 2023 NY Slip Op 01949, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: Failure to appear for an Examination Under Oath breaches a condition precedent in the insurance contract, entitling the insurer to a declaratory judgment of noncoverage.

 

/

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY PLEAD THE EXCEPTION IN THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE; THEREFORE THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF COUNT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s criminal mischief conviction, determined the underlying statute includes an exception which must be affirmatively pleaded. The exception was not affirmatively pleaded in the Superior Court Information (SCI):

“In order to determine whether a statute defining a crime contains an exception that must be affirmatively pleaded as an element in the accusatory instrument or a proviso that need not be pleaded but may be raised by the accused as a bar to prosecution or a defense at trial, a court must look to the language of the statute itself” … . To that end, “legislative intent to create an exception that must be affirmatively pleaded has generally been found when the language of exclusion is contained entirely within a Penal Law provision” … . Penal Law § 145.05 (2) provides that “[a] person is guilty of criminal mischief in the third degree when, with intent to damage property of another person, and having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he or she has such right, he or she . . . damages property of another person in an amount exceeding [$250]” … . Inasmuch as the qualifying language is contained within the statute itself, we agree that such language constitutes an exception. Given that count 1 of the 2016 SCI did not allege that defendant had neither a right to cause the property damage at issue nor a reasonable ground to believe that she had such right, that count — charging defendant with criminal mischief in the third degree — is jurisdictionally defective … . People v West, 2023 NY Slip Op 01921, Third Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: If a criminal statute includes language which is deemed an “exception,” the exception must be affirmatively pled. The failure to affirmatively plead an exception renders the count jurisdictionally defective.

 

/ , , , , ,

THE ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS WITHOUT EVIDENTIARY VALUE; THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION CANNOT BE CURED IN REPLY; FAILURE TO REGISTER AN APARTMENT WITH THE CITY DHCR AND INCREASING THE RENT DO NOT DEMONSTRATE A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme court, determined: (1) the summary judgment motion should have been supported by plaintiff’s affidavit, not the attorney’s affidavit; (2) papers submitted in reply cannot be used to remedy deficiencies in the original submission; and (3), to demonstrate a fraudulent scheme to deregulate an apartment, it is not enough to show the landlord did not register the apartment with the NYC Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) and increased the rent:

CPLR 3212(b) states, “A motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit . . . The affidavit shall be by a person having knowledge of the facts.” Plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit. While he submitted his attorney’s affirmation, “[s]uch an affirmation . . . is without evidentiary value” … . Although plaintiff submitted his complaint, it is not verified, so it cannot be used in lieu of an affidavit (see CPLR 105[u] …).

… [I]n Ampim v 160 E. 48th St. Owner II LLC (208 AD3d 1085 [1st Dept 2022]), [we] said, “an increase in rent and failure to register [an] apartment with . . . DHCR . . ., standing alone, are insufficient to establish a colorable claim of a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment” … .

… Plaintiff failed to demonstrate an increase in rent, or that landlord misrepresented the legal regulated rent … .

Plaintiff did show an increase in rent through documents submitted in reply. However, a movant may not use reply papers “to remedy . . . basic deficiencies in [his] prima facie showing” … . Tribbs v 326-338 E 100th LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01950, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: The attorney affidavit submitted in support of the summary judgment motion was not based on first-hand knowledge and therefore had no evidentiary value.

Practice Point: Re: a summary judgment motion, deficiencies in the original submissions cannot be cured in reply.

Practice Point: Failure to register an apartment with the NYC DHCR coupled with raising the rent do not demonstrate a fraudulent scheme to deregulate.

 

/

PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT IN THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED HIS CHAIR TO START TO TIP OVER BACKWARDS WHEN THE WHEELS CAUGHT IN THE DEFECT; THEREFORE THE INCIDENT WAS NOT UNEXPECTED AND PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, over a dissent, determined petitioner police officer was not entitled to accidental disability benefits for injuries incurred at his desk when he prevented himself from falling over backwards in his chair. When he attempted to roll the chair backwards it caught in a rut and petitioner was injured when he grabbed at a desk to keep from tipping over backwards:

Petitioner acknowledged that he was aware that the flooring at the front desk was in poor condition and that, both on previous occasions and prior to the incident that day, he had observed that there were two ruts in the flooring right behind the desk. Petitioner also testified that, in his estimation, the ruts were “three inches across, maybe a little more.” His testimony also demonstrates that he was aware that the chair he was utilizing that day had wheels and that, when sitting at the desk, those wheels would be in the “general area” of the holes. Given this testimony and the photographs of the floor that were admitted, respondent’s finding that petitioner could have reasonably anticipated the hazard — i.e., that the small wheels catching a depression in the floor would cause the chair to tip — was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, despite other reasonable interpretations. Therefore, the finding that the precipitating event was not unexpected and did not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law will not be disturbed … . Matter of Bodenmiller v DiNapoli, 2023 NY Slip Op 01930, Third Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: To constitute an accident under the Retirement and Social Security Law, the incident must be “unexpected.” Here petitioner was aware of the floor-defect which cause his chair to start tipping over backwards when the wheels caught in the defect. Therefore the incident was not “unexpected” within the meaning of the applicable law.

 

/ , ,

UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION TO RECOVER FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s gender discrimination action under the NYC Human Rights Law (City HRL) should not have been dismissed:

Since “[t]he City HRL does not differentiate between sexual harassment and other forms of gender discrimination, but requires that sexual harassment be viewed as one species of sex- or gender-based discrimination” … , it was error to grant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim, while denying the motion with respect to the hostile work environment and sexual harassment claim. Moreover, plaintiff need not show an adverse employment action in order to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the City HRL … . On this motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim under the City HRL, defendant bore the burden of showing that, based on the record evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, no jury could find defendant liable for gender-based discrimination … . Here, plaintiff submits sufficient evidence to support her assertions that, after she rejected her supervisor’s sexual advances, she was unjustifiably criticized for her work product and attendance by her supervisors and was stripped of her assignments, which permits a finding that she was treated “less well” based on her gender … . Bond v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 01939, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: Under the New York City Human Rights Law a plaintiff need only show she was treated “less well” based on her gender. No adverse employment action is required.

 

/ ,

​ THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS SUIT AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT THE FATHER’S ESTATE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OR TO SUE AS BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs in this dispute among brothers about the father’s estate did not have the authority to act on behalf of the estate or to sue as beneficiaries of the estate. Therefore the action should have been dismissed:

“It is elementary that the executors or administrators represent the legatees, creditors and distributees in the administration of the estate; that their duty is to recover the property of the estate; and that the legatees and next of kin are concluded by their determination in respect to actions therefor and have no independent cause of action, either in their own right or the right of the estate” … . Here, the plaintiffs did not purport to commence this action as personal representatives of the decedent’s estate. The plaintiffs lacked “letters of administration authorizing [them] to act at the key points when this action was commenced and an amended complaint . . . was served” … . Absent extraordinary circumstances which are not present here, a beneficiary has no authority to act on behalf of an estate or to exercise a fiduciary’s rights with respect to estate property … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss, insofar as asserted against them, the causes of action in the amended complaint asserted by the plaintiffs in their derivative capacity on behalf of the decedent’s estate, as well as the causes of action asserted by the plaintiffs in their individual capacity as beneficiaries of the estate to recover assets of the estate … . Levy v Levy, 2023 NY Slip Op 01892, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: Absent the authority to act on behalf of an estate, the beneficiaries cannot sue each other claiming rights to estate assets.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY ESSENTIALLY FAILED TO TAKE ANY POSITION ON THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new SORA hearing, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel:

“A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a right to the effective assistance of counsel” … . Here, the defendant’s counsel failed to provide “meaningful representation” … , as he “failed to litigate any aspect of the adjudication” … , essentially declining to take any position on the matter. People v Motta, 2023 NY Slip Op 01908, Second Dept, 4-12-23

Practice Point: A defense attorney who fails to take a position in the SORA risk-assessment proceedings does not provide effective assistance of counsel.

 

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