You are here: / ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT,...

Search Results

/ ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT “APPEARED INFORMALLY” THROUGH THE CEO’S AFFIDAVIT; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the defendant corporation was not served with the summons and complaint, it “appeared informally” in the action and, therefore, plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment should have been granted. The “informal appearance” was in the form of the corporate CEO’s affidavit:

… “‘[I]n addition to the formal appearances listed in CPLR 320(a), the law continues to recognize the so-called “informal” appearance'” .. . An informal appearance “‘comes about when the defendant, although not having taken any of the steps that would officially constitute an appearance under CPLR 320(a), nevertheless participates in the case in some way relating to the merits'” … . “When a defendant participates in a lawsuit on the merits, he or she indicates an intention to submit to the court’s jurisdiction over the action, and by appearing informally in this manner, the defendant confers in personam jurisdiction on the court” … . “[A]n appearance of the defendant is equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him [or her], unless an objection to jurisdiction under [CPLR 3211(a)(8)] is asserted by motion or in the answer as provided in rule 3211” (CPLR 320[b]).

“The occasion for [an informal] appearance [is] an infrequent thing” … . However, an informal appearance may occur even where the defendant is not served with process , where an individual defendant affirmatively states that he or she is only acting in his or her capacity as an officer of a corporate defendant … . Travelon, Inc. v Maekitan, 2023 NY Slip Op 01816, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Although infrequent, New York still recognizes an “informal appearance” in an action, here through an affidavit submitted by the CEO of a corporate defendant. Because of the informal appearance, plaintiffs were entitled to a default judgment, even though the defendant was never served with a summons and complaint.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFFS OBTAINED A NEW JERSEY DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THREE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE; PLANTIFFS NEED ONLY SERVE ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS TO ENFORCE THE FOREIGN JUDGMENT AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs, who obtained a New Jersey default judgment against three defendants, need only serve one of the defendants in this action to enforce the foreign judgment:

In October 2013, the plaintiffs contracted with the defendant Tirepool, LLC … for the purchase of a used car. The contract was negotiated by the defendants Jeff Massicott and Vivian Wallace, the owners/managers of Tirepool. The defendants breached the contract and retained the plaintiffs’ down payment. … [T]he plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey (hereinafter the New Jersey action). The defendants failed to answer the complaint, and the plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendants in the principal sum of $26,548.32. …

CPLR 1501 provides: “Where less than all of the named defendants in an action based upon a joint obligation, contract or liability are served with the summons, the plaintiff may proceed against the defendants served, unless the court otherwise directs, and if the judgment is for the plaintiff it may be taken against all the defendants.” Here, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the judgment in the New Jersey action and, therefore, the plaintiffs are permitted to proceed against Wallace without effectuating service on the other defendants.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment in lieu of complaint insofar as asserted against Wallace. Obed v Tirepool, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01802, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here there was a foreign default judgment against three defendants who are jointly and severally liable. Plaintiffs only served one of the defendants with a summons in lieu of complaint to enforce the foreign judgment. Plaintiffs did not need to serve the other two defendants and could proceed against the defendant who was served.

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE ENGINEER SENT A LETTER TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRING REPAIR OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VILLAGE HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of the sidewalk defect where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. The village code requires that the board of trustees be given written notice of the defect in order to hold the village liable. Here there was a letter from the town engineer to the abutting homeowners notifying them of the sidewalk defect and requiring repair within 30 days. The majority held that letter did not meet the written notice requirements in the code, which must be strictly construed. the dissent disagreed:

Where … a municipality has enacted a prior written notice law, neither actual nor constructive notice of a condition satisfies the prior written notice requirement … . Records generated by other agencies of the Village, outside of the strict construction of Code of the Village of Garden City § 132-2, fail to satisfy the requirements of the relevant prior written notice law … .. On this record, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any documents to or from other municipal employees found their way to the Village Board of Trustees so as to cognizably qualify as prior written notice under the terms of the Village Code.

Our learned dissenting colleague concludes that the plaintiffs, through the submission of a letter on the Village’s letterhead dated May 11, 2015, from the Village Engineer to the defendant homeowners, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Village Board of Trustees had prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defects. … The letter … states … that a recent inspection of the sidewalk and/or driveway apron adjacent to the defendant homeowners’ property indicated that concrete was in need of repair or replacement. The letter continues, stating that it was necessary to repair or replace a defective sidewalk and/or driveway apron for safety reasons and to reduce the likelihood of lawsuits against the property owners and the Village. For these reasons … the Village Board of Trustees had adopted a resolution … providing that property owners are required to repair or replace defective or damaged sidewalks and/or driveway aprons fronting their property within 30 days of receiving notice of such defects. Strictly construing the terms of the Village’s prior written notice law, as we must … that letter from the Village Engineer to the defendant homeowners does not constitute the giving of prior written notice to the Village Board of Trustees. … . Kolenda v Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 2023 NY Slip Op 01783, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here the village code required that written notice of a sidewalk defect be provided to the board of trustees. A letter from the village engineer to the abutting homeowners requiring repair of the defect did not meet the code’s written-notice requirements, which must be strictly construed. Therefore the village cannot be held liable for the slip and fall.

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED; IN MOVING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DELAY IN SEEKING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate an adequate excuse (law office failure) for not attending the settlement conference and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff’s allegation of law office failure was conclusory and unsubstantiated. In an affirmation in support of the motion … to vacate the order of dismissal, the plaintiff’s counsel described her office’s standard practices and procedures for receiving and processing notices and orders, and posited that her office had not received notice of the scheduled conference because there were “no notes, scanned images, or calendar steps” in the files that she reviewed. The plaintiff … failed to provide an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge of the purported law office failure, provide any details regarding such failure, or provide any other evidence of the system’s purported breakdown that led to counsel’s nonappearance at the conference … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the order of dismissal … . Since the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse its default, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1] …). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hutchinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01782, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here the claim that plaintiff missed the settlement conference due to law office failure was not supported by proof from a person with first hand knowledge. The motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE WET SUBSTANCE ON THE STEP WHERE SHE ALLEGEDLY FELL WAS NOT AN INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall complaint should not have been dismissed because plaintiff did not know what the wet substance on the step was:

… [T]he defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall. In support of its motion, the defendant submitted the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that she slipped and fell on a wet step … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s alleged inability to identify the “precise nature of the wet substance upon which she allegedly slipped and fell cannot be equated with a failure to identify the cause of her fall” … . Diaz v SCG 502, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01779, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a wet step. Her inability to identify the wet substance was not an inability to identify the cause of her fall.

 

/ ,

THE DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant restaurant (ABB) did not demonstrated when the area where plaintiff slipped and fell had been last inspected prior to the fall. Therefore ABB did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the wet condition:

ABB … failed to demonstrate … that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Although ABB’s witness testified that the accident occurred five minutes after the witness had entered the restaurant and observed the floor to be dry, the plaintiff testified that the accident occurred at least one hour later, and ABB did not submit any evidence as to when it last inspected the area prior to the time when the plaintiff asserted the accident occurred … . Carey v Walt Whitman Mall, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01773, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: To be entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case, the defendants must show where the area of the fall was last inspected prior to the fall to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

 

/

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES RUNS THROUGH A DRIVEWAY, 10 FEET ON DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY AND SEVEN FEET ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE DRIVEWAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment declaring plaintiffs did not have a prescriptive easement over a driveway located on both parties’ properties (10 feet on defendants’ side and seven feet on plaintiffs’ side) should have been granted. Supreme Court should have considered the state of the property when the two lots were created from a single parcel in the 1920’s, not the driving habits of plaintiffs and defendants since they purchased the properties in the 1990’s:

“The party asserting an easement by necessity bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that there was a unity and subsequent separation of title, . . . and that at the time of severance an easement over [the servient estate’s] property was absolutely necessary. Significantly, the necessity must exist in fact and not as a mere convenience and must be indispensable to the reasonable use for the adjacent property” … . The court determined that the defendants did not meet their prima facie burden because, in the court’s view, the record reflects that the plaintiffs could not drive their vehicles into and out of their garage without traversing the defendants’ property. … [T]he court erroneously focused on the claimed necessity as it is alleged to exist now. … [T]he relevant inquiry is whether the necessity existed at the time of severance … . … [T]he parties’ respective properties were created from one parcel of land in 1925 and 1926. Hence, the plaintiffs’ testimony as to their driving habits from when they first acquired the property in 1991 is irrelevant. In any event, in contrast to situations where severance of title renders a claimant’s property landlocked, courts have repeatedly rejected claims to an easement by necessity over a driveway where the “sole claimed ‘necessity’ for the easement is the ‘need’ to access off-street parking,” as “[t]hat purported need is nothing more than a mere convenience” … . Bolognese v Bantis, 2023 NY Slip Op 01771, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Plaintiffs’ and defendants’ properties were created from a single parcel in the 1920’s. To determine whether a party has a prescriptive easement, one parcel has to be landlocked at the time of severance. Here the parties’ shared a driveway leading to their garages, part of the driveway was on plaintiffs’ property and part on defendants’ property. Plaintiffs regularly drove over a portion of defendants’ driveway to access their garage. Supreme Court should have considered only the state of the property in the 1920’s when the single parcel was divided into two. The parties’ driving habits were irrelevant. Therefore defendants were entitled to a declaration that plaintiffs did not have a prescriptive easement over the driveway.

 

/ ,

BUYERS OF THE HOME HEALTHCARE AGENCY SEEK SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE PROVISIONS SURVIVE THE TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT; BUT THE BUYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a factually complex opinion by Justice Oing, determined (1) the specific performance provisions in the purchase agreement survived termination of the purchase agreement; and (2) the buyer’s summary judgment motion seeking specific performance should not have been granted. The facts of the case are far too detailed to summarize here.

This dispute arises out of a failed sale of a home healthcare agency. The seller accuses the buyer of repudiating the contract; the buyer charges that seller thwarted its efforts to close the deal because of seller’s remorse. At stake: who owns the business. If the seller prevails, it retains the termination fee; if the buyer prevails, the contractual remedy of specific performance compels the seller to close and sell the company to the buyer. …

The parties entered into the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, dated September 25, 2019, wherein the seller agreed to sell its interest in Extended Nursing to the buyer for $49 million. The Purchase Agreement required the buyer to make an initial escrow deposit of $1.47 million, which amount would be retained as a termination fee by the seller in the event that the buyer did not close. One of the critical components of the purchase, for which the seller specifically negotiated, was that closing should occur at the earliest practicable time. … The outside date was March 25, 2021 — 18 months after the date the parties executed the Purchase Agreement. The seller claims that the outside date was an essential term … . … § 14.17 of the Purchase Agreement provides the buyer with the remedy of specific performance, which, under Purchase Agreement § 12.2(c), survives termination of the Purchase Agreement. Extended CHHA Acquisition, LLC v Mahoney, 2023 NY Slip Op 01762, First Dept 4-4-23

Practice Point: Here the specific performance provisions of the purchase agreement survived the termination of the agreement, but the buyers’ motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance should not have been granted.

 

/ , , ,

ABSENT FRAUD OR COLLUSION, STRICT PRIVITY PRECLUDES THE PROSPECTIVE BENEFICIARIES OF AN ESTATE FROM BRINGING A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY WHO PLANNED THE ESTATE; THE ATTORNEY OWED NO DUTY TO THE BENEFICIARIES (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the malpractice action by the prospective beneficiaries of an estate against the attorney who planned the estate should have been dismissed because there was no privity between the beneficiaries and the attorney:

In the context of estate planning malpractice actions, strict privity applies to preclude a third party, such as beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries like plaintiffs, from asserting a claim against an attorney for professional negligence in the planning of an estate, absent fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances … . While plaintiffs argue their claim against defendant attorneys is couched as one for simple negligence, as opposed to legal malpractice, plaintiffs have not pleaded facts to show that defendant attorneys owed plaintiffs a duty of care in the drafting of their client’s will and trust agreement. The strict privity requirement here protects estate planning attorneys against uncertainty and limitless liability in their practice … . Thus, plaintiffs’ negligence claim is unavailing for lack of factual allegations to demonstrate that defendants owed plaintiffs a duty.

Plaintiffs have not pleaded sufficient factual allegations in their amended complaint to indicate that circumstances of fraud, collusion and/or aiding and abetting exist in this case to override the strict privity rule. Plaintiffs have not alleged fraud with requisite specificity as, inter alia, there are no allegations defendants knowingly made material misrepresentations in the will and trust for the purpose of inducing justifiable reliance by their client (since deceased) upon such misrepresentations, and moreover the allegations made do not support favorable inferences in that regard … . Phillips v Murtha, 2023 NY Slip Op 01767, First Dept 4-4-23

Practice Point: Absent fraud or collusion, strict privity precludes a legal malpractice action by prospective beneficiaries of an estate against the attorney who planned the estate. Here the attorney owed no duty to the prospective beneficiaries.

 

/ , ,

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT APPORTIONING LIABILITY TO THE GYNECOLOGIST WHO NOTED IN HIS REPORT HE FOUND “NO ABNORMALITIES” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE NOTATION MISLED THE PRIMARY CARE PHYICIAN RESULTING IN A DELAY IN DIAGNOSING APPENDICITIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Dr. Subramanyam’s motion to set aside the verdict apportioning liability to him in this medical malpractice case should have been granted. Plaintiff experienced abdominal and was referred by her primary physician (defendant Dr. Selitsky) to Dr. Subramanyam for a gynecological exam. Dr. Subramanyam’ noted in his report that “no abnormalities” were found. Plaintiff argued the “no abnormalities” finding misled Dr. Selitsky causing a delay in diagnosis of plaintiff’s appendicitis:

We find that the record was insufficient to support the jury’s findings that Dr. Subramanyam’s notation of “no abnormalities” misled Dr. Selitsky, who was plaintiff’s primary care physician, and thereby delayed plaintiff’s treatment for appendicitis.

Defendant Dr. Selitsky, testified that she did not rely upon Dr. Subramanyam’s sonogram report in ruling in or out the possibility of appendicitis, a diagnosis she already had considered as part of her differential diagnosis. She further testified that her referral of plaintiff to Dr. Subramanyam was solely to determine whether the source of plaintiff’s pain was gynecological in origin. Furthermore, Dr. Selitsky testified that while she assumed that she had received a copy of the report, she could not recall reading it, and, if she had read it, when she did so. Dr. Subramanyam also testified that it was not within his role to provide recommendations in his report or advise physicians what they should do next. Ameziani v Subramanyam, 2023 NY Slip Op 01759, First Dept 4-4-23

Practice Point: Defendant primary care doctor referred plaintiff to defendant gynecologist to determine the cause of abdominal pain. The gynecologist noted in his report he found “no abnormalities.” Plaintiff alleged that notation misled the primary care physician causing delay in the diagnosis of appendicitis. The appellate division set aside the verdict against the gynecologist.

 

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