You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE REFEREE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DISMISS THE FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION; NEITHER MOTHER NOR THE RESPONDENT HUSBAND (WHO DID NOT APPEAR) CONSENTED TO THE REFEREE’S HEARING THE MATTER; THE POWERS OF A REFEREE ARE EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversal the order by the referee dismissing the family offense proceeding, determined the referee was without jurisdiction to decide the matter because neither mother nor respondent husband (who did not appear) consented the referee hearing he matter:

“A referee derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311), which can be made only upon consent of the parties, except in limited circumstances” … . “Absent the parties’ consent to the reference, the . . . [r]eferee ha[s] the power only to hear and report [their] findings” … . An appropriate order of reference is thus an “essential jurisdictional predicate” to the authority of the referee to act … , and a referee “who attempts to determine matters not referred to [them] by the order of reference acts beyond and in excess of [their] jurisdiction” … .

Here, as noted, petitioner never consented to the Referee hearing the matter. Although CPLR 4317 (b) permits a referee to hear and determine an issue without the consent of the parties where the trial of the issue “will require the examination of a long account,” where the issue is one “of damages separately triable and not requiring a trial by jury,” or “where otherwise authorized by law,” none of those exceptions to the consent requirement applies here. Thus, the Referee “lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the petition” … , even without prejudice. We note in any event that, absent a fact-finding hearing, which did not take place, the Referee had no grounds to dismiss the petition based on insufficient evidence. Matter of Fournier v Perez, 2026 NY Slip Op 04063, Fourth Dept 6-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of the powers of a Family Court referee.

 

, , ,

THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PERSONAL-SERVICE-OF-A-CLAIM REQUIREMENT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT FOR ACTIONS SEEKING DAMAGES FOR THE STATE’S APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY; HERE SERVICE BY REGULAR FIRST-CLASS MAIL WAS NOT A JURIDICTIONAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims in the property-appropriation-by-the-state action, determined an exception to the usual service requirements applies. Failure to serve the State with a copy of the claim by personal service or by certified mail is not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore the State’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The claimants served the claim upon the Office of the Attorney General by regular first-class mail. * * *

… [W]here the claim sought only to recover damages for the State’s appropriation of the claimants’ property, service upon the Attorney General by personal service or certified mail was not required … .

Court of Claims Act § 10 reflects a similar unique exception for appropriation claims. While most types of claims must be both “filed and served upon the attorney general” to be properly commenced within the time prescribed by the statute … , a “claim for the appropriation by the state of lands” does not require service upon the Attorney General within the statutory time limit … . Port Grove Assoc. v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03990, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed discussion of the service requirements for a Court of Claims action seeking damages for the State’s appropriation of claimant’s property. Failure to effect personal service on the Attorney General is not a jurisdictional defect.

 

, , , ,

HERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BROUGHT A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO PROHIBIT THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER PRECLUDING EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE’S PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY WAS DEEMED UNTIMELY; A WRIT OF PROHIBITION DOES NOT LIE FOR THIS PURPOSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Quirk, determined that the trial judge’s preclusion of evidence based upon the district attorney’s untimely production of discovery was not subject to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition. The petition for a writ of prohibition was brought by the then district attorney:

Granting prohibition here would constitute improper collateral interlocutory review. This point is underscored by the Legislature’s amendment of CPL 450.20 to permit the People to appeal as of right from the portion of an order dismissing an accusatory instrument or some of its counts pursuant to CPL 245.80(2). In enacting this amendment, the Legislature chose to limit the types of appeals available to the People and did not permit the People to appeal from orders granting other remedies or sanctions under CPL 245.80(2), including orders precluding evidence, regardless of whether such orders would prevent the People from prosecuting a case. Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, although the nonappealability of an order may be considered as a factor in favor of prohibition as part of the second step of the two-tiered analysis, “nonreviewability by way of appeal alone, does not provide a basis for reviewing error by collateral proceeding in the nature . . . of prohibition”  … .

Since a writ of prohibition does not lie, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the petition which was to prohibit the enforcement of the order of preclusion.  Matter of Rocah v McCarthy, 2026 NY Slip Op 03967, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: A writ of prohibition does not lie to prohibit the enforcement of an order precluding evidence becasue the production of discovery by the People was deemed untimely.

 

, , ,

FOR PURPOSES OF THE “RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE,” A DEFENDANT CAN BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE WORK OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IF THE WORK IS “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS;” THE EXCAVATION WORK WAS “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS;” THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court., determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint by adding independent contractors hired in connection with excavation work on adjacent property should have been granted. The excavation work caused plaintiff’s building to collapse. The statute of limitations for the negligence causes of action had run. A defendant can be vicariously liable for the actions of independent contractors if the work is “inherently dangerous.” Because this work was “inherently dangerous,” the defendants and the independent contractors are “united in interest” such that the relation-back doctrine applies:

… [T]he plaintiff satisfied the second prong of the relation-back test with respect to the causes of action sounding in negligence and gross negligence, as the plaintiff established that the proposed defendants and the original defendants were united in interest as to those causes of action. “As a general rule, ‘a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts'” … . However, this general rule is subject to various exceptions, including where the work performed is inherently dangerous … . In this case, the amended complaint and the proposed second amended complaint alleged sufficient facts demonstrating that the work being performed was inherently dangerous and, thus, the original defendants could be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions of the proposed defendants … . Further, the plaintiff satisfied the third prong of the relation-back test, as the plaintiff demonstrated that the proposed defendants knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against them as well … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the amended complaint to add the proposed defendants as defendants with respect to the causes of action sounding in negligence and gross negligence … . Crossbay Assoc., LLC v Singh, 2026 NY Slip Op 03941, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: A party can be vicariously liable for the work done by an independent contractor if the work is “inherently dangerous.” The excavation work at issue in this case was deemed inherently dangerous.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, SUA SPONTE, AGAINST A DEFENDANT NOT NAMED IN PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE PHRASE IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION REQUESTING “SUCH OTHER RELIEF” AS IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR DISPOSITIVE RELIEF (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted a default judgment against defendant Molina in this foreclosure action. There were two defendants, Pena and Molina. Pena answered the complaint but Molina did not. The notice of motion seeking summary judgment did not mention Molina. Therefore the judge should not have granted relief not demanded by the plaintiff:

“Among the statutory requirements [set forth in CPLR 2214(a) and (b)] is that notices of motion set forth ‘the relief demanded and the grounds therefor.’ The failure to give a party proper notice of a motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion and renders a resulting order void” … . In other words, “[a] court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief against a defaulting party where that relief is not requested in the moving papers” … .

Here, since the plaintiff did not move for leave to enter a default judgment against Molina, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, granted that relief … . As the court lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief … , so much of the order … , as, sua sponte, granted leave to enter a default judgment against Molina was rendered void … , “‘warranting vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4)'” … . As to the court’s reliance on the language in the notice of motion seeking “such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper,” this Court has explicitly held that courts may not “rely upon general relief clauses in noticed motions—’for such other and further relief the court deems just and proper’—to justify the sua sponte [granting of dispositive relief]” … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Pena, 2026 NY Slip Op 03940, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: The phrase in motion papers requesting “such other relief as is deemed appropriate” cannot be the basis for dispositive relief.​

 

, , ,

THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE THE VILLAGE FROM RAISING THE “FAILURE TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM” DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division’s reversal of Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a two-judge dissent, determined the defendant-developer, FPW, in a breach-of-a-real-estate-contract action brought by the plaintiff-village, was precluded from litigating a counterclaim because it never filed a notice of claim with the village. Supreme Court had ruled the doctrine of equitable estoppel precluded the village’s “lack-of-notice-of-claim” argument because the village was aware of the facts underlying the counterclaim from the start of the lawsuit and failed to raise the defense until the statute of limitations had run. The Court of Appeals rejected the equitable-estoppel argument:

We have explained that equitable estoppel generally “is not applied against the government, as a matter of policy, because to do so could easily result in large scale public fraud” and “violate the doctrine of separation of powers” … . Thus, “[w]e have recognized that estoppel may be warranted in unusual factual situations to prevent injustice . . . but we have limited its use against government agencies to all but the rarest cases” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that the Village did not engage in wrongful or misleading conduct warranting the application of equitable estoppel. As the Appellate Division correctly determined, participation in litigation, without more, does not constitute action calculated to mislead or discourage a party from filing a notice of claim … . That holds true here, where the Village was pressing its own breach of contract claim and therefore had every reason to participate in discovery and related court conferences, independent of FPW’s counterclaim. Moreover, the Village’s answer to the counterclaim put FPW on notice that it was raising FPW’s “fail[ure] to perform all conditions precedent” as an affirmative defense, and compliance with a notice of claim statute such as CPLR 9802 “is a condition precedent” to an action against a municipality … . Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v Freeport Plaza W., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03906, CtApp 6-18-26

Practice Point: Although the equitable estoppel doctrine can very rarely be applied to a municipality, the village did nothing improper or misleading which would warrant precluding the village’s “failure to file a notice of claim” defense to defendant’s counterclaim. There was a two-judge dissent.

 

, , ,

PETTIONERS (LICENSED CANNABIS RETAILERS) DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE RESPONDENT AGENCY’S REGULATIONS CONCERNING INSPECTIONS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AT PETITIONERS’ PLACES OF BUSINESS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE ALLEGATION THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INSPECTIONS ARE CONDUCTED VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION IS PREMATURE BECAUSE THE ALLEGATION HAS NOT YET BEEN SUBJECTED TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, I.E., THE “EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES” REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN MET (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Corcoran, determined the preliminary injunction prohibiting certain inspections of petitioners’ businesses, which are licensed for the retail sale of cannabis, should not have been granted. The respondent is an agency, the NYS Cannabis Control Board.

… [Re:] petitioners’ attempt to show the likelihood of a successful constitutional challenge, we find that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction because petitioners failed to show that the statutory and regulatory scheme is invalid in all of its applications … . * * *  When viewed as a whole, we find that the statutory and regulatory framework provides “meaningful limitation[s]” on an inspector’s discretion and ensures that “the search is limited in scope to that necessary to meet the interest that legitimized the search in the first place” … . …

To the extent petitioners challenge the manner in which inspections were applied to their particular businesses, these “as-applied” claims are premature because they have not been subjected to administrative review. A facial challenge requires examination of the statute “on a cold page” and without reference to the particular conduct … , whereas an “as-applied” challenge “requires an analysis of the facts of a particular case” … . Matter of Super Smoke N Save LLC v New York State Cannabis Control Bd., 2026 NY Slip Op 03715, Third Dept 6-11-26

Practice Point: A court can review an agency’s regulations which are alleged to be unconstitutional “on a cold page,” but a court cannot review the manner in which the regulations are applied absent an agency determination (the “exhaustion of remedies” rule in administrative law).

 

, ,

DEFENDANT HAD SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK TO ALLOW THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION TO BE BROUGHT IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant, which issued preferred stock to plaintiff, had sufficient contacts with New York to bring the breach of contract action in New York:

Pursuant to the certificates of designation governing the preferred stock issued by defendant to plaintiff, defendant was required to provide dividends to a paying agent, which then provided the funds to a depository to pay the preferred stockholders. To facilitate dividend distributions, defendant designated entities located in New York as the paying agent and the depository. Further, defendant’s agreements with each of the depositories required the depository to maintain facilities in New York City. Defendant also contracted with multiple underwriters based in New York to sell the preferred stock. * * *

… [The] New York-based contacts are sufficiently related to plaintiff’s underlying breach of contract claim because “at least one element [of the cause of action] arises from the New York contacts” … . Defendant allegedly breached its duty under the certificates of designation not to sell stock to its affiliates “unless full cumulative dividends on the [preferred stock] . . . have been paid.” Defendant’s alleged breach consisted of not only its agreement to sell stock to one of its affiliates but also its failure to make full cumulative dividend payments to the preferred stockholders before completing the sale. … [D]efendant’s failure to make dividend payments, which necessarily would have been sent to its paying agent in New York, sufficiently connects defendant’s contacts with New York to the breach of contract cause of action … . Katz v Navios Mar. Holdings, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03731, First Dept 6-11-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when a defendant’s contacts with New York are sufficient to support a breach of contract action.brought in New York.​

 

,

“EXHAUSTION OF REMEMDIES” IS NOT ALWAYS REQUIRED BEFORE AN AGENCY ACTION CAN BE CHALLENGED IN COURT; HERE THE CHALLENGE INVOLVED A PURE QUESTION OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the “exhaustion of remedies” rule does not apply to administrative actions where, as here, an agency’s action is challenged as either unconstitutional or beyond the agency’s power. Here petitioners alleged the respondent NYC Water Board overcharged for excess water consumption. That agency’s procedure was properly reviewed by the court (but the argument was ultimately rejected):

… “[E]xhaustion of administrative remedies is not required where an agency’s action is challenged as either unconstitutional or beyond its grant of power, or when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile, or when its pursuit would cause irreparable injury” … . This is because while review of some claims “hinges upon factual issues reviewable at the administrative level [which] must first be addressed to the agency so that a necessary factual record can be established” … , other claims present “a circumstance where the issue to be determined is purely a question of law” … . To the extent the fifth cause of action sought a declaration that the Water Board is acting in contravention of an established statutory scheme for setting rates for excess water consumption, exhaustion was not required … , and the court should not have dismissed that portion of the fifth cause of action on those procedural grounds. Matter of Town of Carmel v New York City Water Bd., 2026 NY Slip Op 03680, Second Dept 6-10-26

Practice Point: This decision presents an example of when a court challenge to an agency action does not trigger the “exhaustion of remedies” requirement. Here the challenge presented a pure question of law which did not require the development of a factual record at the agency level.

 

, ,

HERE THE STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TOXIC TORTS ACTIONS WAS PRE-EMPTED BY A FEDERAL “DISCOVERY RULE” WHICH ALLOWS A TOXIC-TORT ACTION TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE CAUSE OF AN INJURY, EVEN IF MORE THAN FIVE YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE DISCOVERY OF THE INJURY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dowling, determined the federal “discovery rule” for toxic tort actions pre-empts the state statute of limitations. The lawsuit alleged a town landfill near a school emitted toxic materials causing illness among the school’s staff and students:

42 USC § 9658 has been deemed a “discovery rule” … , and “does not purport to create an entirely new statute of limitations framework for state toxic tort actions” … . Instead, the statute provides “a limited ‘[e]xception to State statutes’ [that] applies only if the state statute ‘provides a commencement date which is earlier than the federally required commencement date'” … . Thus, in New York, where suit was not brought within three years of the discovery-of-injury date as provided by CPLR 214-c(2), the primary effect of 42 USC § 9658 is to allow a plaintiff to bring suit within one year after “the date the plaintiff knew (or reasonably should have known)” the cause of an injury, even if more than five years have elapsed since discovery of the injury … . * * *

… [W]ith respect to those plaintiffs in this action who did not bring suit within three years of the discovery of their alleged injuries (see CPLR 214-c[2]), 42 USC § 9658 applies to allow those plaintiffs to bring suit within one year after “the date the plaintiff knew (or reasonably should have known)” the cause of an injury, even if more than five years have elapsed since discovery of the injury … . Klaus v Town of Brookhaven, 2026 NY Slip Op 03669, Second Dept 6-10-26

Practice Point: Here the state statute of limitations for toxic tort cases was pre-empted by a federal “discovery rule” which allows suit within one year after “the date the plaintiff knew (or reasonably should have known)” the cause of an injury, even if more than five years have elapsed since discovery of the injury.

 

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