You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO TIMELY FILE AND SERVE HIS OPPOSITION PAPERS AND DEMONSTRATED A POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; SUPREME COURT HAD REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE OPPOSITION PAPERS BEFORE ISSUING ITS ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION; THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s motion to vacate an order dismissing the petition issued after Supreme Court refused to consider petitioner’s opposition papers should have been granted. Petitioner had made a good faith effort to timely file and serve the papers and demonstrated a potentially meritorious cause of action:

The petitioner, who had until July 13, 2018, to submit opposition papers to the respondents’ motion, filed pro se opposition papers with the court on July 13, 2018. He failed, however, to properly serve the respondents with a copy of the opposition papers, or to provide the court with proper proof of service. Nonetheless, the petitioner did file with the court a defective affidavit of service, in which dates of service were blank and which was neither signed nor notarized. Moreover, a copy of the opposition papers that the petitioner had emailed to the respondents was later discovered in the “junk” email folder of the respondents’ counsel. “Clearly, the [petitioner] made a good faith, albeit unsuccessful, attempt to timely . . . respond to the motion,” and the court “should have considered the absence of any evidence that the [petitioner’s] default was intentional, made in bad faith, or with an intent to abandon the action” … .

… [T]he petitioner’s arguments in support of the amended petition demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Lastly, the respondents have “neither alleged nor established that [they] would be prejudiced by vacating the default and hearing the matter on the merits” … . Matter of Brennan v County of Rockland, 2022 NY Slip Op 03240, Second Dept 5-16-22

Practice Point: Here petitioner’s good faith effort to timely file and serve his opposition papers demonstrated he did not intend to abandon the action. Supreme Court should not have refused to consider his opposition papers before issuing its order dismissing the petition. The order should have been vacated.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A FORECLOSURE ACTION USUALLY ACCELERATES THE DEBT AND STARTS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CLOCK, HERE THE DEFENDANTS-BORROWERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION SOUGHT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT DUE (THE 2009 COMPLAINT WAS NOT SUBMITTED); THEREFORE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTANT ACTION IS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants-borrowers in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate the debt was accelerated by the 2009 foreclosure action. Therefore the complaint in the instant action should not have been dismissed as untimely:

… [T]he defendants failed to demonstrate that the debt was validly accelerated by the commencement of the 2009 action. In support of their respective motions, the defendants submitted only the summons with notice from the 2009 action, which did contain a statement that BAC sought “payment of the full balance due,” and a printout of the WebCivil Supreme-Case Detail related to the instant action … . Since the defendants did not submit the complaint or the notice of pendency filed in the 2009 action, it cannot be determined whether those documents elected to accelerate the mortgage loan … . GSR Mtge. Loan Trust v Epstein, 2022 NY Slip Op 03232, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: To demonstrate that a prior foreclosure action accelerated the debt and thereby started the statute of limitations clock, proof that the prior action called for payment of the entire debt must be submitted. Here the defendants-borrowers did not submit the 2009 foreclosure complaint and therefore did not prove the debt was accelerated by the 2009 foreclosure action.

 

,

A MONETARY PENALTY IMPOSED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY, AS OPPOSED TO DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined sanctioning plaintiff’s attorney for failing to provide discovery, rather than dismissal of the complaint, was the best way to handle plaintiff’s inaction:

… [T]he plaintiff’s attorneys failed to comply with the defendants’ demands for a bill of particulars and discovery, did not object to those demands, and did not respond in any way to follow-up communications from the defendants’ attorneys until opposition to the motions was filed. Moreover, in response to the motions, the plaintiff’s attorneys failed to articulate any excuse for this series of failures … .

Notwithstanding this dereliction of responsibility, at the time the defendants moved … to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them, the plaintiff was not in violation of any court-ordered deadlines … . In fact, the defendants also both moved … to compel the plaintiff to comply with their respective discovery demands by a date certain. And … not long after the defendants’ motions were filed, the plaintiff began to produce the requested materials, albeit with some alleged deficiencies.

Under these circumstances, we are of the view that reinstatement of the complaint conditioned upon the payment of a penalty by the plaintiffs’ trial counsel personally to both defendants would be more appropriate than the outright denial of the plaintiff’s right to a day in court … . Cook v SI Care Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 03225, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Here a monetary penalty imposed personally upon plaintiff’s attorney, as opposed to dismissal of the complaint, was deemed the appropriate penalty for plaintiff’s failure to provide discovery.

 

,

ABSENT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,” A JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS A COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint because there were no “extraordinary circumstances:”

The Supreme Court erred … in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint … . “‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . Here, although the plaintiff’s submissions were insufficient to demonstrate his entitlement to a default judgment, no extraordinary circumstances existed to warrant dismissal of the complaint … . Binder v Tolou Realty Assoc., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03223, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Absent so-called “extraordinary circumstances.” a judge does not have the authority to, sua sponte, dismiss a complaint. Here plaintiff’s evidence was not sufficient to support a default judgment, but that insufficiency did not justify dismissing the complaint.

 

NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A BAVARIAN STEM DONOR REGISTRY INVOLVED IN DECEDENT’S PHYSICIANS’ SEARCH FOR A BONE-MARROW MATCH TO TREAT LEUKEMIA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over BSB, a Bavarian stem donor registry:

BSB was contacted through a chain of interactions between donor registries that began with decedent’s New York physicians reaching out to the National Marrow Donor Program in Minnesota to find a match for decedent so that she could undergo a bone marrow transplant to treat her leukemia. When no match was found there, the search was expanded, including to Republic of German’s central registry, and ultimately a donor was located in the BSB registry. BSB did not engage in a regular course of conduct, nor did it purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within New York State … . Furthermore, BSB, a 20-employee not-for-profit organization, was reimbursed with a set sum by a German entity for providing the donation to decedent’s transplant center’s courier in Germany, and reimbursement was not contingent on decedent’s ability to pay, insurance, or the like. There is no evidence that BSB derived substantial revenue from the transaction or from New York, where it has no offices, employees, agents, marketing, registrations, or presence … . Even if the long-arm statute applied, BSB does not have the minimum contacts necessary such that it should have reasonably expected to be brought into court here … .Aloisio v New York-Presbyt./Weill Cornell Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 03205, First Dept 5-17-22

Practice Point: A Bavarian stem donor registry did not have sufficient contacts with New York to allow New York to exercise long-arm jurisdiction over the registry. The registry played a role in decedent’s physicians’ search for a bone-marrow match to treat decedent’s leukemia. The registry had no presence in New York and did not purposely conduct activities in New York. Even if the long-arm statute applied, the registry did not have the minimum contacts with New York required under a due-process analysis.

 

,

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.

 

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