You are here: / ONE DEFENDANT PROVED HE DID NOT RESIDE AT THE ADDRESS WHERE SERVICE OF...

Search Results

/ ,

ONE DEFENDANT PROVED HE DID NOT RESIDE AT THE ADDRESS WHERE SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS MADE; AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE THE PROCESS SERVER EXERCISED “DUE DILIGENCE” IN ATTEMPTING TO SERVE THE OTHER DEFENDANT BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL AND MAIL; DEFAULT JUDGMENT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the default judgments against De La Cruz-Ramos and Mosquea should have been vacated. De La Cruz-Ramos proved he did not reside at the address where service of process was made. And plaintiff did not prove the process server exercised due diligence in serving Mosquea before resorting to “nail and mail.” The attempts to serve Mosquea were all made during working hours:

De La Cruz-Ramos [submitted] his own affidavit averring that he had moved from the address where service was made, as well as a lease confirming that he had moved before the date of service … . * * *

Mosquea contends that the service was defective because the process server did not exercise “due diligence” in seeking to effectuate service on defendant before resorting to nail-and-mail service (CPLR 308[4]). Generally, a plaintiff can establish diligence by providing an affidavit of service indicating efforts to serve the defendant at her residence on three different occasions, at different times of day … . As Mosquea argues, however, all of the dates of attempted personal service upon him were during the work week and during normal business hours in the same afternoon window. Thus, plaintiff did not establish the due diligence necessary to resort to nail and mail service … . Unitrin Safeguard Ins. Co. v Della-Noce, 2026 NY Slip Op 00601, First Dept 2-5-26

Practice Point: Here the process server made three attempts to serve a defendant at the same time of day, during work hours. The process server, therefore, did not exercise “due diligence” before resorting to nail and mail.

 

/ ,

IF THE UNDERLYING INSURANCE POLICY DOES NOT INDICATE THAT A WRITTEN AGREEMENT NAMING A PARTY AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED MUST BE SIGNED, AN UNSIGNED DOCUMENT TO THAT EFFECT IS ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the fact the the change order, which required defendant (Arsenal) to name plaintiff as an additional insured, was unsigned, it was enforceable:

​An unsigned document may qualify as a written agreement requiring a party to be named as an additional insured, provided that the additional insured provisions in the insurance policy itself do not explicitly require that the agreement be signed … . If such agreement is unsigned, it may still be enforceable, “provided there is objective evidence establishing that the parties intended to be bound” … . * * *

Since the change order qualifies as a written agreement requiring Arsenal to name plaintiff as an additional insured, Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and found that defendant insurer is required to provide plaintiff a defense in the underlying litigation, as the duty to defend was triggered … . A1 Specialized, Inc. v James Riv. Ins. Co., 2026 NY Slip Op 00570, First Dept 2-5-26

Practice Point: An unsigned document requiring a party to be named as an additional insured is enforceable if the underlying policy does not require the agreement to be signed.

 

/ ,

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE IN AN INSURANCE POLICY ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER; HERE DAMAGE CAUSED BY “INTERIOR TILE” WORK WAS COVERED UNDER THE POLICY; IN PREPARING THE BATHROOM FLOOR FOR TILING THE INSURED USED WELDING EQUIPMENT WHICH CAUSED A FIRE; THE INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PREPARATORY WORK WAS NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE COVERAGE FOR “INTERIOR TILE” WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff insurance company was, by the terms of the policy, obligated to cover property damage caused by defendant contractor, who was retained to refurbish a bathroom. The policy issued by plaintiff to defendant excluded from coverage any property damage caused by  the defendant. There was an “exception to the exclusion” for “interior tile” work. In preparing the bathroom floor for tiling, defendant’s worker used welding equipment which started a fire, causing damage. The question before the court was whether the “interior tile” work “exception to the exclusion” included the preparation for the tile work using welding equipment:

Policy exclusions must be stated “in clear and unmistakable terms so that no one could be misled” … and “are to be accorded a strict and narrow construction” … . To avoid coverage pursuant to an exclusion, the insurer must establish that the exclusions or exemptions apply to the incident in question and are subject to “no other reasonable interpretation” … .

Plaintiff here failed to meet this burden. The Policy fails to define “interior tile” work. Nor does it indicate the scope or extent of what constitutes “tiling work” or articulate whether the phrase was meant to encompass closely related preparatory tasks, which is a reasonable interpretation advanced by defendants … . Accordingly, the Policy’s exclusions and the “interior tile” exception is ambiguous. The record before us is conclusory and does not resolve these ambiguities. Well-settled “precedent[] require us to adopt the readings that narrow the exclusion[]” and construe ambiguities against the insurer plaintiff, resulting in coverage as a matter of law … . Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v Michelle Kuo Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 00427, Frist Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how a court will strictly construe “exceptions” to “exclusions from coverage” in an insurance policy.

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS WAIVED A DEFENSE WITHOUT THEIR CLIENTS’ CONSENT; THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the legal malpractice complaint should not have been granted. Defendants-attorneys represented Park West. A driver working for Park West was in an accident and both Park West and the driver were sued. The contract between the driver and Park West indicated the driver was an independent contractor. The attorneys, however, conceded the driver was an employee and Park West settled. The essence of the legal malpractice action was the attorneys’ failure to raise the independent-contractor-defense to Park West’s liability. The First Department noted that the evidence indicated the driver may in fact have been Park West’s employee, but that cannot be decided at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The only relevant question for the motion to dismiss is whether the complaint stated a cause of action for legal malpractice:

The motion court improperly held that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for legal malpractice against defendants. To state a claim for legal malpractice, a “plaintiff must show that (1) the attorney was negligent; (2) the attorney’s negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s losses; and (3) plaintiff suffered actual damages” … . Moreover, an “attorney’s conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s damages if but for the attorney’s negligence the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action or would not have sustained actual and ascertainable damages” … .

Here, plaintiffs argue that but for defendants’ negligence in waiving Park West’s independent contractor defense in the underlying action, without their consent and without disclosing conflicts in their representation of several defendants in the action, they would not have been compelled to settle the action, and they would not have been held vicariously liable for [the driver’s] negligence. Park W. Exec. Servs., Inc. v Gallo Vitucci & Klar, LLP, 2026 NY Slip Op 00428, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: The question at the motion-to-dismiss stage is whether the complaint states a cause of action, not whether the elements of the cause of action can be proven. Here the defendants-attorneys’ waiver of a defense without their client’s consent stated a cause of action for legal malpractice. Whether that defense would hold up at trial is not relevant to a dismissal for failure state a cause of action.​

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT BASED HIS DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY, IN PART, ON INACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE; GUILTY PLEAS VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty pleas, determined the misinformation provided to the defendant about his sentencing exposure rendered the pleas invalid:

Defendant was told that he faced the possibility of serving two consecutive 15-year sentences if he elected to go to trial. At most, however, he was facing 20 years because of the statutory cap (see Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [e] [i]). Unbeknown to him, he was weighing the benefit of a plea offer of 20 years when in reality, it was the maximum he would serve even if convicted after trial. Defendant was not told about the capping statute and therefore lacked a “full understanding of what his plea connotes and of its consequence” … . This is particularly true because defendant’s guilty plea afforded him the exact sentence he would have served. The record is also clear that defendant remained conflicted about pleading guilty and sought to withdraw his plea.

The totality of the circumstances reflect that defendant’s sentencing exposure played a decisive role in his decision to plead guilty, and his erroneous understanding that he faced 30 years in prison if he was convicted after trial had an “impact on [his] judgment” significant enough to render his guilty plea not knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . People v Ramos, 2026 NY Slip Op 00430, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: Here defendant agreed to a 20-year sentence with the understanding he could be sentenced to 30 years after trial. In fact, his sentence after trial would be capped at 20 years. His guilty pleas were not knowing, voluntary and intelligent.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEY FAILED TO PROVE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY TOOK REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS TO REMEDY THE WET FLOOR, AND THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The slip and fall was related to tracked-in water in the lobby of defendants’ premises. The court noted what defendants failed to prove, i.e., there was a “storm in progress,” they took reasonable precautions to remedy the wet floor, and they didn’t have constructive or actual notice of the condition. The decision provides insight into how those issues can be proven:

Defendants failed to demonstrate that they are protected from liability for plaintiff’s accident by the storm in progress rule. They did not submit any weather reports or expert opinions to show an ongoing storm at the time of plaintiff’s fall, and plaintiff’s conclusory, affirmative response when asked whether it was “snowing when [her] accident happened” is insufficient to show that a storm was in progress … .

… [T]he superintendent … could not recall whether he placed … signs or dry-mopped on the morning of plaintiff’s accident or if he even worked that day. In fact, there was no evidence that a caution sign was placed in the lobby or that anyone had mopped the area prior to the accident, or throughout that day … . Although defendants were not obligated to continuously mop moisture tracked onto the lobby floor by people entering from outside or to cover the entire floor with mats, here plaintiff claims that her accident was caused by a lack of matting on the portion of the lobby between the entrance and the stairway … . …

Defendants … failed to demonstrate when they last inspected the lobby on the day of the accident … . … [T]hey failed to produce a witness to testify that no complaints about the location of plaintiff’s fall were received before the accident and that there were no prior incidents in that area before plaintiff fell … . * * * … [T]he superintendent, who could not recall if he worked on the day of plaintiff’s accident, testified that he could not recall if anyone had complained to him about water on the floor of the lobby and that he had “no idea” about the procedure for tenants to make complaints. Rodney v 840 Westchester Ave, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00435, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what evidence a defendant in a wet-floor slip and fall case should present to prove (1) the “storm in progress” defense, (2) actions were taken to remedy the wet floor, (3) defendant’s lack of constructive notice of the condition, and (4) defendant’s lack of actual notice of the condition.

Practice Point: Note that the plaintiff’s testimony that it was snowing at the time of her fall was not sufficient to prove defendants’ “storm in progress” defense.

 

/ ,

ONCE THE JUDGE DETERMINED THERE WERE NECESSARY PARTIES WHICH WERE NOT JOINED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND SUMMONED IF POSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have ruled on the motion for a default judgment without first identifying the necessary parties to the action (after concluding there in fact were necessary parties who were not joined):

“[N]ecessary parties are persons who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action and must be made plaintiffs or defendants” … . “CPLR 1001(b) requires the court to order the necessary party or parties summoned, where they are subject to the court’s jurisdiction, and ‘[i]f jurisdiction over such necessary parties can be obtained only by their consent or appearance, the court is to determine, in accordance with CPLR 1001(b), whether justice requires that the action proceed in their absence'” … . “The nonjoinder of necessary parties may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion, including for the first time on appeal” … .

Here, it was premature for the Supreme Court to make a determination on the plaintiff’s motion, among other things, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants without first identifying the necessary parties to the action … . After the court concluded that there existed necessary parties to the action, the court … should have ascertained the identity of those parties, whether they can be joined, and, if not, whether the action should proceed in the absence of any necessary parties pursuant to CPLR 1001(b) … . Under the circumstances of this case, “‘the questions of whether there are any . . . necessary parties who should be joined in this action and, if so, the appropriate procedural disposition for effecting joinder should not be determined by this court in the first instance'” … . Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hold a hearing to determine whether there are any necessary parties who should be joined in this action and, if so, to compel their joinder, subject to any affirmative defenses, and if joinder cannot be effectuated, to determine, pursuant to CPLR 1001(b), whether the action should proceed in the absence of any necessary parties. Hossain v Rahman, 2026 NY Slip Op 00352, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into to proper procedure which should be followed by a judge when there are necessary parties which have not been joined.

 

/ , , , ,

THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION CHALLENGING TERMINATION OF SECTION 8 RENT-SUBSIDY BENEFITS STARTS WHEN THE TENANT BECOMES AWARE OF THE TERMINATION; THE PETITION WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner became aware that the Section 8 rent subsidy benefits were terminated in December 2019 triggering the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the termination. Therefore petitioner’s 2024 article 78 petition was time-barred:

The four-month statute of limitations applies to proceedings terminating Section 8 benefits, and it begins to run upon tenant’s receipt of the T3 letter advising the tenant of that termination (see CPLR 217[1] …). The statute of limitations may be triggered in the absence of actual notice where, as here, the party knew or should have known about the determination … . The record shows petitioner had actual notice in December 2019, so the statutory limitation period to challenge termination of her subsidy started no later than December 31, 2019, and expired on April 30, 2020, well before she commenced the instant proceeding. Matter of Cruz v New York City Hous. Auth. (NYCHA), 2026 NY Slip Op 00420, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: The statute of limitations for bringing an article 78 petition challenging the termination of section 8 rent-subsidy benefits starts when the tenant receives the T3 letter or when the tenant knew or should have known about the termination.

 

/

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL OUTSIDE, NOT IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been dismissed because plaintiff tripped and fell outside and not in a “passageway” within the meaning of Industrial Code 23-1.7(e)(1):

… [T]he Labor Law § 241(6) claim insofar as it was predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(1), as the accident occurred outdoors and therefore did not take place in a “passageway” within the meaning of the Industrial Code provision (see Quigley v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 168 AD3d 65, 67-68 [1st Dept 2018] [holding that a “passageway” under § 23-1.7(e)(1) pertains to “an interior or internal way of passage inside a building”]). Lacruise v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 2026 NY Slip Op 00424, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: At least in the First Department, the Industrial Code reference to  “passageway” means an interior passage inside a building, not a walkway outside.

 

/ , , , ,

ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES PROPERLY HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER TO PLACE THE CHILD IN TRADITIONAL FOSTER CARE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Family Court, determined the petitioner (Administration for Children’s Services) was properly held in civil contempt upon the motion of the attorney for the child for failure to comply with the court order to place the child in a traditional foster home. However, the Second Department deemed the imposition of a fine of $250 per day inappropriate:

“‘A motion to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court'” … . Upon a finding of civil contempt, “‘Judiciary Law § 773 . . . provides for two types of awards: one where actual damage has resulted from the contemptuous act in which case an award sufficient to indemnify the aggrieved party is imposed, and one where the complainant’s rights have been prejudiced but an actual loss or injury is incapable of being established'” … . “In the second situation, the fine is limited to $250, plus the complainant’s costs and expenses” … . By contrast, “where there is actual loss or injury the statute does not provide for a general $250 fine, single or multiple. It calls instead for an assessment that will indemnify aggrieved parties” … .

Here, the Family Court correctly determined that the child had suffered actual injury as a result of the contemptuous act. * * *

* * * [T]he court should have imposed a “reasonably certain compensatory fine” that is “properly related to the scope of the injury” … .

… “‘Accordingly, ‘[a]ny penalty imposed is designed not to punish but, rather, to compensate the injured private party or to coerce compliance with the court’s mandate or both'” … . Under these circumstances, where the Family Court specifically invoked the petitioner’s “inconsisten[cy] and carelessness,” the fine of $250 per day of noncompliance appears to represent an improper attempt to punish the contemnor rather than compensate the injured party … . Matter of Emily M. (Joyce G.), 2026 NY Slip Op 00377, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: Here the Administration for Children’s Services, upon the motion of the attorney for the child, was held in civil contempt for failing to comply with an order to place the child in traditional foster care.

 

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