You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

THE VALIDATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THE PETITION WAS NOT VERIFIED; THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE OBJECTION WITH DUE DILIGENCE WAIVED IT; ALTHOUGH THE LANGUAGE IN THE PETITION WAS NOT EXACTLY THAT IN CPLR 3021, THE PETITION WAS IN FACT VERIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s validating petition petition should not have been dismissed on the ground that the petition was not verified because: (1) the respondents waived the issue by not objecting with due diligence; and (2) although the exact words re: verification in CPLR 3021 were not used, the language used in the petition had the same effect as verification:

“Section 16-116 of the Election Law requires that a special proceeding brought under article 16 of the Election Law shall be heard upon a verified petition. The requirement is jurisdictional in nature” … . However, the objection to the alleged lack of verification of the validating petition was waived by the objectors’ failure to raise that objection with due diligence as required by CPLR 3022 … .

Moreover, the mere fact that a petition does not use the exact words set forth in CPLR 3021 does not mean that the petition is not verified, so long as the language used has the same effect as a verification … . Here, the language used in the validating petition had the same effect as a verification and, therefore, the validating petition was “verified” within the meaning of Election Law § 16-116. Matter of Francois v Rockland County Bd. of Elections, 2022 NY Slip Op 03190, Second Dept 5-12-22

Practice Point: Under the Election Law a validating petition must be verified and the absence of verification is a jurisdictional defect. The failure raise the issue with due diligence, however, waives the objection pursuant to CPLR 3021. In addition, to constitute a valid verification, the exact language in CPLR 3021 need not be used. Here he language in the validating petition. although not exactly as prescribed in CPLR 3021, was deemed sufficient to verify it.

 

DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ADDRESS AT WHICH SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS ATTEMPTED WAS DEFENDANT’S ACTUAL PLACE OF BUSINESS; AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE MAY NOT BE AMENDED TO CURE AN ERRONEOUS ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s affidavit demonstrated that the address at which service of process was made was not his business address and the affidavit of service could not be amended to cure the address-error:

… [A]n affidavit submitted by [defendant] Harooni … was sufficient to demonstrate that the address where service was alleged to have been effected in the affidavit of service … , was not in fact the address of Harooni’s ‘actual place of business’ (CPLR 308[2] …). … Pursuant to CPLR 305(c), a court, ‘[a]t any time, in its discretion and upon such terms as it deems just, . . . may allow any . . . proof of service of a summons to be amended, if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons is issued is not prejudiced’ … . An ‘erroneous address’ contained in an affidavit of service affects a defendant’s substantial right to notice of the proceeding against him or her, and may not be corrected by an amendment …”. Jampolskaya v Ilona Genis, MD, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 03104, Second Dept 5-11-22

Practice Point: An affidavit of service may be amended, but not to correct the wrong address.

 

, ,

ACTION AGAINST AMAZON ALLEGING RETALIATION AGAINST WORKERS WHO PROTESTED COVID-RELATED WORKING CONDITIONS PREEMPTED BY NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (NLRA) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this action by the NYS Attorney General against Amazon alleging retaliation against workers for protesting COVID-related working conditions was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA):

… [W]e find that the Labor Law §§ 215 and 740 claims alleging retaliation against workers based, in part, on their participation in protests against unsafe working conditions plainly relate to the workers’ participation in “concerted activities for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection,” i.e., activities that are protected by the NLRA … , and therefore that the claims are preempted … . Where conduct is clearly protected or prohibited by the NLRA, the NLRB, and not the states, should serve as the forum for disputes arising out of the conduct … .  People v Amazon.com, 2022 NY Slip Op 03081, First Dept 5-10-22

Practice Point: Here a state action, brought by the NYS Attorney General, against Amazon alleging retaliation against workers for protesting COVID-related working conditions was deemed preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

 

, ,

A DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE IS NOT A FINAL DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA; ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE APPROPRIATE DAMAGES IN AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s (Wormser’s) action for breach of the forum selection clause seeking attorney’s fees could go ahead. The defendant’s (L’Oreal’s) New Jersey action had been dismissed “without prejudice,” which was not a determination on the merits, and therefore Wormser’s action was not precluded by the res judicata doctrine:

Plaintiff (Wormser) asserts a claim for breach of the forum selection clause contained in the parties’ agreement, which requires disputes to be brought before the courts of New York City, and for attorneys’ fees incurred in the actions that defendant (L’Oréal) brought against it in New Jersey. After the New Jersey court had dismissed its complaint “with prejudice within the jurisdiction of New Jersey,” L’OrÉal commenced an action against Wormser in Supreme Court, New York County. Subsequently, a New Jersey appellate court amended the New Jersey trial court’s orders to make the dismissal “without prejudice” … , and Wormser brought this action.

Wormser’s claim is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, because the dismissal was without prejudice by the New Jersey appellate court and therefore was not a final determination on the merits ,,, ,

Wormser’s claim for attorneys’ fees may proceed, as “damages may be obtained for breach of a forum selection clause, and an award of such damages does not contravene the American rule that deems attorneys’ fees a mere incident of litigation” … . Wormser Corp. v L’Oréal USA, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03093, First Dept 5-10-22

Practice Point: A dismissal without prejudice is not a final determination on the merits and is not therefore subject to res judicata.

Practice Point: Attorney’s fees are properly demanded as damages in an action for breach of a forum selection clause.

 

, ,

PETITIONERS. RELATIVES OF PERSONS IN THE NYS DNA DATABASE, HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE RESPONDENTS’ REGULATIONS ALLOWING THE RELEASE OF “FAMILIAL DNA MATCH” INFORMATION LINKING DNA FROM A CRIME SCENE TO A FAMILY, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL; THE REGULATIONS WERE BASED ON SOCIAL POLICY AND THEREFORE EXCEEDED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE RESPONDENT AGENCIES; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE REGULATIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, reversing Supreme Court, over a full-fledged two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the respondent agencies exceeded their regulatory powers when they authorized the release of so-called “familial DNA” information to be used as a possible lead for identifying the perpetrator of a crime. In the absence of a DNA “match” or a “partial match” a “familial match” may indicate the perpetrator has a familial relationship with someone in the DNA database. A crucial threshold question was whether the petitioners, relatives of persons whose genetic profiles are in the New York State DNA database, had standing to contest the familial DNA regulations. The dissenters argued the petitioners did not have standing. The majority concluded the basis for the familial DNA regulations was primarily social policy, and therefore the regulations were legislative, rather than administrative, in nature:

Each petitioner’s brother has genetic information stored in the DNA databank. Neither petitioner has been asked or mandated to provide DNA for comparison. Because they are law abiding citizens, neither petitioner knows if they have been targeted for investigation as a result of a familial DNA search, but they harbor great concern and anxiety that they might be investigated for no other reason than that they share family genetics with a convicted criminal … . * * *

We are not required to determine whether respondents made a good or beneficial policy decision. The fact that the decisions respondents made are by their very nature policy driven, greatly favors a conclusion that they were made in excess of respondents’ authority. Matter of Stevens v New York State Div. of Criminal Justice Servs., 2022 NY Slip Op 03062, First Dept 5-5-22

Practice Point: Relatives of persons in the NYS DNA database had standing to challenge the regulations issued by the respondent agencies allowing the release of “familial DNA match” information linking DNA from a crime scene to a family, not an individual.

Practice Point: The “familial DNA match” regulations were deemed to be rooted in social policy, which is the realm of the legislature, and therefore the promulgation of the regulations exceeded the agencies’ powers.

 

, , ,

THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS, INCLUDING PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was deficient because the foundation for the admission of business records was not laid:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted … an affidavit of an employee of its current mortgage loan servicer, along with copies of the 90-day notice, which was generated by the plaintiff’s prior loan servicer, along with alleged proof of mailing, which was also generated by the prior loan servicer. The affiant averred … that the current mortgage loan servicer is responsible for maintaining the books and records pertaining to the subject mortgage, “including, but not limited to, the account ledgers, and prior servicer’s records.” However, the affiant did not aver to her familiarity with the prior loan servicer’s business practices and procedures, or that the prior loan servicer’s records were incorporated into the current loan servicer’s records. Thus, the plaintiff’s moving affidavit failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518(a) … , and the prior loan servicer’s records, including the 90-day notice, were not admissible … . “Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with the notice provision of RPAPL 1304” … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Basta, 2022 NY Slip Op 02971, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, at the summary judgment stage, even if business records demonstrating the bank’s compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 are submitted, they are not admissible unless a proper foundation (CPLR 4518(a)) is laid in the accompanying affidavit.

 

,

TO CHALLENGE THE BANK’S STANDING TO FORECLOSE THE DEFENDANT MUST ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; MERELY DENYING THE RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the bank in this foreclosure action was not required to affirmatively demonstrate standing, the defendant, to raise the issue, must assert lack of standing as an affirmative defense, and merely denying the relevant allegations in the complaint is not enough:

… [T]he plaintiff was not required to show its standing to maintain the action. “[W]here, as here, standing is not an essential element of the cause of action, under CPLR 3018(b) a defendant must affirmatively plead lack of standing as an affirmative defense in the answer in order to properly raise the issue in its responsive pleading” … . The mere denial of the allegation that the plaintiff was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage in the answer of Republic First Bank, without more, was insufficient to assert that the plaintiff lacks standing … . Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Jemal, 2022 NY Slip Op 02970, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: Lack of standing in a foreclosure action must be raised as an affirmative defense. It is not enough to deny the relevant allegations in the foreclosure complaint.

 

,

THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO SAVE THE AMENDED PETITION CHALLENGING A USE VARIANCE; THE INTITIAL PETITION FAILED TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY WHO WAS KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AND WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND; THE AMENDED PEITITION, WHICH NAMED THE NECESSARY PARTY, WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAD NO DOUBT ABOUT WHO THE NECESSARY PARTY WAS AND HAD NAMED HER IN A PRIOR PETITION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE COULD NOT BE INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the relation-back doctrine did not save the petition challenging a use variance. The initial petition was dismissed for failure to name a necessary party, Rosa Kuehn. The subsequent amended petition, which included the necessary party, was dismissed as time-barred:

Supreme Court correctly determined that petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the relation back doctrine. That doctrine “permits a petitioner to amend a petition to add a respondent even though the statute of limitations has expired at the time of amendment so long as the petitioner can demonstrate three things: (1) that the claims arose out of the same occurrence, (2) that the later-added respondent is united in interest with a previously named respondent, and (3) that the later-added respondent knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by petitioners as to the later-added respondent’s identity, the proceeding would have also been brought against him or her” … .

… [P]etitioners simply cannot meet the third and final condition and therefore cannot avail themselves of the doctrine. Indeed, Rosa Kuehn was appropriately named as a respondent and identified as the landowner of the subject property in petitioners’ successful challenge to the use variance issued in 2013 … ; “thus, this simply is not an instance where the identity of a respondent . . . was in doubt or there was some question regarding that party’s status” … . Matter of Nemeth v K-Tooling, 2022 NY Slip Op 03034, Third Department 5-4-22

Practice Point: Here a necessary party was not named in the petition and the petition was dismissed for that reason. The amended petition, which named the necessary party, was time-barred. The relation-back doctrine could not be invoked to save the amended petition because the identity of the necessary party was known to the petitioners who had named her in a related petition in 2013.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S UNTIMELY ANSWER WAS REJECTED BY PLAINTIFF BUT PLAINTIFF DEEMED THE ANSWER TO BE A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; DEFENDANT DID NOT OBJECT; AN APPEARANCE IS THE EQUIVALENT OF SERVICE OF A SUMMONS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAIVED THE LACK-OF-PERSONAL-JURISDICTION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant waived any claim of a lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff, rejecting defendant’s answer as untimely, indicated the answer was deemed to be a notice of appearance, which is the equivalent of personal service of the summons:

An appearance of the defendant is equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him or her, unless an objection to jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) is asserted by motion or in the answer … . Here, the plaintiff submitted evidence that the defendant served an answer upon it on or about January 20, 2015. That answer did not assert the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff rejected the answer as untimely and advised the defendant that it would deem the untimely answer a notice of appearance by the defendant. The defendant did not object to the plaintiff treating her untimely answer as a notice of appearance . The defendant did not assert lack of personal jurisdiction until moving, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint more than two years later … . Therefore, she waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Muzac, 2022 NY Slip Op 02978, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s late answer was rejected but plaintiff informed defendant it considered the answer to be a notice of appearance. Defendant did not object. An appearance is equivalent to service of a summons. Therefore defendant waived the lack-of-personal-jurisdiction defense.

 

,

PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO THE EXTENT THE AMENDMENT AMPLIFIED THE ALLEGATIONS ALREADY MADE WITHOUT OBJECTION IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs were entitled to amplify the allegations in the supplemental bill of particulars in second and proposed third supplemental and amended bill of particulars:

The plaintiffs were entitled to amend their bill of particulars once as of right at any time prior to the filing of the note of issue … . Such amendment enables a party to include whatever could have been included in the original bill of particulars … . “‘Whatever the pleading pleads, the bill must particularize since the bill is intended to [afford] the adverse party a more detailed picture of the claim . . . being particularized'” … . B. E. M. v Warwick Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 02990, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiffs were entitled to amend the supplemental bill of particulars to the extent the amendment amplified allegations already made without objection in the supplemental bill of particulars.

 

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