You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE LOAN SERVICER PURPORTING TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT AVER THAT THE AFFIANT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE PLAINTIFF BANK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ default was not demonstrate by the complaint, which was not verified, or by the affidavit from the loan servicer, which did not aver that the affiant had the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure proceeding:

… Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment and order of reference. “Where, as here, a foreclosure complaint is not verified, CPLR 3215(f) states, among other things, that upon any application for a judgment by default, proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default, and the amount due are to be set forth in an affidavit ‘made by the party'” …  Here, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit executed by a contract management coordinator for the plaintiff’s purported loan servicer. However, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the affiant had the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Stiene, 2022 NY Slip Op 01833, Second Dept 3-16-22

​Practice Point: Here, in this foreclosure action, the affidavit from the loan servicer which purported to demonstrate defendants’ default did not demonstrate the affiant had the authority to act on behalf of the bank.

 

, ,

WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE IS VALID IS A THRESHOLD ISSUE FOR THE COURT, NOT THE ARBITRATOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the validity of an agreement to arbitrate is a threshold issue which must be determined by the court, not the arbitrator:

… [T]he petitioners raised a threshold issue regarding the validity of the purported agreement to arbitrate, as they contended that they did not sign, and that neither Graves nor AMF had the authority to sign, any contract on their behalf concerning the purported transaction involving the respondents. Thus, this threshold issue was for the Supreme Court, rather than an arbitrator, to determine … . Matter of Northeast & Cent. Contrs., Inc. v Quanto Capital, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01791, Second Dept 3-16-22

 

, , ,

THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND PLAINTIFF BUS PASSENGER’S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE NORMAL JERKS AND JOLTS OF BUS TRAVEL AND NOT BY ANY NEGLIGENCE ON DEFENDANTS’ PART; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the defense verdict in this bus-passenger-injury case should not have been granted. The jury could have found plaintiff was injured by the normal “jerks and jolts” of bus travel without any negligence on defendants’ part:

… [G]iving due deference to the jury’s credibility findings … , it could have determined, based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence introduced at trial, including the testimony of the bus driver and a surveillance video, that the movement of the bus as it drove over the speed bump was one of the sort of “jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel” and not attributable to the negligence of the defendant … . Jones v Westchester County, 2022 NY Slip Op 01774, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: Here the testimony of the bus driver and the surveillance video allowed the jury to determine plaintiff bus-passenger’s injuries were caused by normal movements of the bus and not by the driver’s negligence. Therefore the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict should not have been granted.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHILE REPAIRING AN ESCALATOR, COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE ESCALATOR’S SUDDEN START-UP, THE MOTION TO COMPEL HIM TO SUPPLEMENT HIS ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES WAS PROPERLY DENIED; PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTIONS CAN BE PROVEN BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; AT THIS STAGE PLAINTIFF CAN TESTIFY UNDER OATH THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF THE UNEXPECTED START-UP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the motion to compel plaintiff to supplement his interrogatories in this products liability case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged the escalator he was working on started up without warning severely injured his leg. The fact that plaintiff can not identify the cause of the unexpected start-up did not require supplementing his interrogatories as he can so state “under oath:”

“It is well settled that a products liability cause of action may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and thus, a plaintiff need not identify a specific product defect” … . In the absence of evidence identifying a specific defect “a plaintiff must prove that the product did not perform as intended and exclude all other causes for the product’s failure that are not attributable to [the] defendants” … . If a “plaintiff is unable to prove both elements, ‘a jury may not infer that the harm was caused by a defective product unless [the] plaintiff offers competent evidence identifying a specific flaw'” …

In his interrogatory responses, plaintiff identified several alleged design defects, including the design of the pit, that contributed to his injury. However, he did not identify a cause for the unexpected start up of the escalator. … Presently, plaintiff asserts that he cannot pinpoint the defective component that allowed the escalator’s machinery to begin moving without warning. In an instance where plaintiff “presently lacks the knowledge” to specifically identify the nature of the defect, plaintiff can testify to that “under oath” … . … [I]f he acquires the pertinent information he would be under an obligation to promptly supplement his answers to the interrogatories at issue … . Berkovich v Judlau Contr., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01733, First Dept 3-15-22

Practice Point: Products liability actions can be proven by circumstantial evidence. If a plaintiff does not know the cause of a product malfunction (here, an escalator which allegedly started running unexpectedly) at the discovery stage, the plaintiff can testify to that fact under oath.

 

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS WAS NOT TIMELY, THE ASSERTION OF THE DEFENSE IN THE REPLY TO THE COUNTERCLAIM WAS TIMELY; THE DEFENSE CAN BE RAISED IN A SUBSEQUENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department noted that the statute of limitations affirmative defense was timely served in a reply to a counterclaim

[Defendant] NYCTA did not waive its affirmative defense under CPLR 3211(a)(5) because a defense based upon the statute of limitations is waived only if it is neither asserted in a responsive pleading or in a timely motion … . Here the affirmative defense was timely asserted in NYCTA’s reply to the counterclaim. The motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(5), however, was not timely made, as required under CPLR 3211(e) … . … We note that NYCTA may pursue relief on its statute of limitations defense by way of a summary judgment motion in the normal course of the litigation … . Han v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01737, First Dept 3-15-22​

Practice Point: Even if it is too late to move to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds, if the defense has been timely asserted, it can be the basis of a subsequent summary judgment motion.

 

, ,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD RULED THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE “POST-CONCUSSION SYNDROME” OR A “CONCUSSION CONDITION;” PLAINTIFF WAS THEREFORE ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING THOSE INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the ruling by the Workers’ Compensation Board that plaintiff did not have “post-concussion syndrome” or a “concussion condition” collaterally estopped plaintiff from claiming those injuries in this Labor Law action:

We agree with defendant that the court erred in denying its motion insofar as it effectively sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims for damages related to PCS or a concussion condition as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, but we conclude that plaintiff’s claims for damages related to headaches and the alleged concussion itself are not so barred. The quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies, such as the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board), “are entitled to collateral estoppel effect where the issue a party seeks to preclude in a subsequent civil action is identical to a material issue that was necessarily decided by the administrative tribunal and where there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate before that tribunal” … and a determination whether a plaintiff actually sustained a physical injury causally related to an accident … , the Board in this case specifically found that plaintiff did not have “post-concussion syndrome” or a “concussion condition” that were causally related to the second work accident. Szymkowiak v New York Power Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01702, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: Here the Workers’ Compensation Board’s ruling plaintiff did not have “post-concussion syndrome” or a “concussion condition” precluded claims for those injuries in the plaintiff’s Labor Law action pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE PARTY TO BE ADDED AS A DEFENDANT HAD ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE; AND THE CIVIL CONSPIRACY CAUSE OF ACTION PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ADD IS NOT RECOGNIZED IN NEW YORK; THEREFORE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WERE PATENTLY DEVOID OF MERIT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the motion to amend the complaint to add a defendant (Fu) and a cause of action for civil conspiracy should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not allege that Fu had any interest in the property in dispute. And New York does not recognize civil conspiracy as a tort:

It is well settled that leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given, provided the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit . . . , and the decision to permit an amendment is within the sound discretion of the court” … . Initially, plaintiff clarified in the amended complaint that the first cause of action, which is asserted against all defendants and seeks to set aside the deed and mortgage, was brought under RPAPL article 15. Pursuant to RPAPL article 15, an action may be maintained against any “person [who] . . . may have an . . . interest in the real property which may in any manner be affected by the judgment” (RPAPL 1511 [2]). Here, plaintiff failed to allege in the amended complaint any interest that Fu may have in the property and, thus, she is not a proper party to that cause of action … . Furthermore, New York does not recognize civil conspiracy to commit a tort, such as fraud or conversion, as an independent cause of action … . Therefore, the proposed amendments with respect to Fu are patently devoid of merit. Landco H & L, Inc. v 377 Main Realty, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01695, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: New York does not recognize civil conspiracy as a tort. This case is an example of what it means to find proposed amendments to a complaint “patently devoid of merit.”

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT NEVER PHYSICALLY POSSESSED THE NOTE UNDERLYING THE MORTGAGE AND WAS NEVER ASSIGNED THE NOTE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON THE MORTGAGE; AN ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A FULLY BRIEFED MOTION ARGUMENT IS NOT A DEFAULT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant does not own the note underlying the mortgage and therefore has no right to foreclose. The Fourth Department noted that an attorney’s failure to appear at a full briefed motion argument does not constitute a default:

… [D]efendant lacks noteholder standing because the promissory note upon which defendant relies is neither endorsed in blank nor specially endorsed to defendant … . … [E]ven had the note been endorsed in blank or specially endorsed to defendant, defendant’s admitted failure to physically possess the original note would independently preclude it from foreclosing as a noteholder … . …

Nor does defendant have assignee standing. The affidavits submitted on defendant’s behalf do not aver that the subject note was ever assigned to defendant … . …

… [A]n action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15 is a proper procedural vehicle for determining defendant’s standing to foreclose (see RPAPL 1501 [1], [5] … ). Hummel v Cilici, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01690, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: An attorney’s failure to appear at a fully briefed motion argument is not a default.

Practice Point: A party who never physically possessed the note underlying the mortgage does not have standing to foreclose.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT WAS IN JAPAN, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS FAMILY COURT CIVIL-CONTEMPT MATTER; APPELLANT HAD APPEARED VIRTUALLY IN COURT PROCEEDINGS AND STATED HE WOULD RETURN TO NEW YORK TO COMPLY WITH ANY COURT ORDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department refused to dismiss the appeal of this Family Court civil contempt matter pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine (which authorizes the dismissal of an appeal if the appellant has left the jurisdiction). Here father was in Japan:

Although the father is in Japan, we decline to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. There is no “nexus” connecting the father’s fugitive status and these proceedings … . The father has continued to appear virtually in court, communicate with his counsel, and consent to relief sought by the mother. He has complied with the terms of his probation and submitted an affidavit stating that he will return to New York to comply with any court order. Under these circumstances, we find that the father has not “flout[ed] the judicial process,” frustrated the operation of the courts, or prejudiced the mother’s rights by leaving the jurisdiction to warrant dismissal of the appeal … .Matter of Hilary C. v Michael K., 2022 NY Slip Op 01512, First Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: If an appellant leaves the court’s jurisdiction (here father went to Japan), the appeal may be dismissed pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The doctrine was not applied in this Family Court civil contempt case because father participated in court proceedings virtually and stated he would return to New York to comply with any court order.

 

,

THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 70, THE ANTI-SLAPP LAW, DO NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO THE PLAINTIFF’S PENDING DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 2020 amendments to the anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) law (Civil Rights Law section 70) should not be applied retroactively to cover plaintiff’s defamation claims against defendant. Therefore defendant’s motion for a ruling that the anti-SLAPP amendments applied retroactively should not have been granted:

… [T]here is insufficient evidence supporting the conclusion that the legislature intended its 2020 amendments to the anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) law (see Civil Rights Law § 70 et seq.) to apply retroactively to pending claims such as the defamation claims asserted by plaintiffs in this action.

The Court of Appeals has stated, in general terms, that “ameliorative or remedial legislation” should be given “retroactive effect in order to effectuate its beneficial purpose” … . * * * … “[C]lassifying a statute as remedial does not automatically overcome the strong presumption of prospectivity since the term may broadly encompass any attempt to supply some defect or abridge some superfluity in the former law” … . …

In light of …. the factual evidence that the amendments to New York’s anti-SLAPP law were intended to better advance the purposes of the legislation by correcting the narrow scope of the prior anti-SLAPP law, we find that the presumption of prospective application of the amendments has not been defeated. The legislature acted to broaden the scope of the law almost 30 years after the law was originally enacted, purportedly to advance an underlying remedial purpose that was not adequately addressed in the original legislative language. The legislature did not specify that the new legislation was to be applied retroactively. The fact that the amended statute is remedial, and that the legislature provided that the amendments shall take effect immediately, does not support the conclusion that the legislature intended retroactive application of the amendments. Gottwald v Sebert,  2022 NY Slip Op 01515, First Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: The fact that a statute is deemed “remedial” in nature does not necessarily support a retroactive application of the statute. Here the 2020 amendments to the anti-SLAPP law, although “remedial,” were not applied retroactively to cover plaintiff’s pending defamation action against the defendant. The defendant’s motion for a ruling applying the amendments retroactively should not have been granted.

 

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