You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

RESPONDENT THREATENED SELF HARM AND WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE JUDGE DECLINED TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) AND SET THE MATTER DOWN FOR A HEARING; SUBSEQUENTLY THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELED THE HEARING AND DISMISSED THE PETITION, ACTIONS FOR WHICH THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge, who had declined to issue a temporary “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) for respondent and had set the matter down for a hearing, did not have the authority to, sua sponte, cancel the hearing and dismiss the petition. After respondent had threatened self harm he was taken into custody pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law:

… [O]ne day prior to the scheduled hearing, Supreme Court, sua sponte, issued a decision canceling the hearing and dismissing the petition. As grounds for the dismissal, the court found that dismissal best served the interest of preserving judicial and law enforcement resources given respondent’s inability to purchase a firearm due to the arrest pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, purported hospital admission pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 (a) and the lack of any indication that respondent owned any firearms in New York at the time of the proceeding. …

To begin, as the order on appeal was issued on a sua sponte basis, no appeal lies as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]). Nevertheless, “we treat the notice of appeal as a request for permission to appeal and grant the request” … .

… Supreme Court’s sua sponte order dismissing the petition must be reversed. “[S]ua sponte dismissals are to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant them” … . Here, there is no indication that such extraordinary circumstances exist. The grounds relied upon by Supreme Court — that the relief that would be provided by an ERPO was “duplicative and an inefficient use of judicial and law enforcement resources” — to the extent that they could constitute meritorious grounds for dismissal, require that petitioner be given the opportunity to respond and object … . Moreover, CPLR 6343 (1) clearly mandates that if a temporary ERPO is denied, such as occurred here, the court hold a hearing, no later than 10 business days after the application for the ERPO is served on the respondent, to determine whether an ERPO should be issued. Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal on grounds that are entirely absent from the statute was improper, and we therefore reverse and remit to conduct a hearing as required. Matter of Hogencamp v Matthew KK., 2025 NY Slip Op 06106, Third Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Sua sponte orders are not appealable as of right. Permission to appeal must be requested.​

Practice Point: Here the respondent threatened self harm and was taken into custody pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law. A judge’s authority is constrained by the Mental Hygiene Law. Once an “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) is denied by the judge and the matter is set down for a hearing, the judge cannot, sua sponte, cancel the hearing and deny the petition for reasons not prescribed in the Mental Hygiene Law.

 

, , ,

IN THIS EJECTMENT ACTION, DEFENDANT-TENANT’S “FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION,” “WAIVER,” “CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION,” “BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT,” “IMPROPER NOTICE OF DEFAULT,” AND “TRESPASS” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined several affirmative defenses in this ejectment action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff landlord sought to eject defendant tenant from a parking lot for nonpayment of rent. Defendant alleged, and plaintiff acknowledged, plaintiff had rented certain parking spaces to a third party. The Second Department held: (1) no motion lies to dismiss a “failure to state a cause of action” defense because plaintiff cannot test the sufficiency of its own claim; (2) the “waiver” defense should not have been dismissed despite the “nonwaiver” provision in the lease; (3) the constructive eviction and breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment defenses were supported by plaintiff’s renting spaces to a third party; (4) the ‘improper notice of default” defense was supported by the plaintiff’s failure to provide the notice called for by the lease; and (5) the “trespass” defense was supported by the rental of spaces to a third party:

CPLR 3211(b) provides that “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more defenses, on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit.” “When moving to dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the affirmative defenses ‘are without merit as a matter of law because they either do not apply under the factual circumstances of [the] case, or fail to state a defense'” … . “‘On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(b), the court should apply the same standard it applies to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the factual assertions of the defense will be accepted as true'” … . “‘Moreover, if there is any doubt as to the availability of a defense, it should not be dismissed'” … . Diversified Bldg. Co., LLC v Nader Enters., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06047, Second Dept 11-5-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for dismissal of an affirmative defense and the elements of “waiver,” “constructive eviction,” “breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment,” “Improper notice of default,” and “trespass” affirmative defenses as alleged by defendant-tenant in this ejectment action brough by plaintiff-landlord.

 

, ,

PETITIONER, A TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUAL, WAS ENTITLED, FOR PERSONAL SAFETY REASONS, TO THE SEALING OF THE RECORD OF HER NAME-CHANGE PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a transgender individual, was entitled, for her personal safety, to the sealing of the record of her name-change proceeding:

We analyzed Civil Rights Law § 64-a in Matter of Cody VV. (Brandi VV.) (226 AD3d 24 [3d Dept 2024]). There, Supreme Court — the same justice — denied an applicant’s request to seal the record of the applicant’s name-change proceeding … . Reversing the court’s denial and ordering the applicant’s record sealed, we observed, in sum and substance, that the relevant statutory language reflects the Legislature’s determination that transgender individuals face threats to their personal safety that are real, constant and everywhere … . Thus, only in an “extraordinary” case will there be a “substantial basis” to find that an open court record of a name change proceeding would not place a transgender applicant’s safety at risk … .

In a “customary” case like this one, protecting the applicant from the threat of harm posed by an open court record of a name change proceeding necessarily takes priority over the public’s ability to access that court record … . To reverse those priorities is to intrude upon the policymaking authority of the Legislature. To deny a sealing request based upon those inverted priorities is to abuse the limited judicial discretion available under Civil Rights Law § 64-a. To decline to seal the record despite the applicant’s showing of jeopardy is to place the applicant at risk of the very harms the statute is meant to guard against … .

​… [P]etitioner affirmed her transgender status and that she was seeking to change her name to one that reflects her female gender identity, which is the name she uses in her personal and professional life. She expressed her fear that public access to her name change would disclose her transgender status and place her at increased risk of hate crimes, harassment and other discrimination. In view of the totality of circumstances … , petitioner has demonstrated that she is entitled to have the record of her name change proceeding sealed pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 64-a … . Matter of Kieran B., 2025 NY Slip Op 06006, Third Dept 10-30-25

Practice Point: In Civil Rights Law 64-a, the legislature recognized the personal safety issues raised when a transgender individual seeks a name-change. Therefore, sealing of the name-change record reflects the legislative intent and should be the general rule.

 

, ,

THE PROCESS SERVER KNEW WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED AND WORKED AND MADE SEVERAL UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT AT HOME; WITHOUT MAKING ANY ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANT AT WORK, THE PROCESS SERVER RESORTED TO “NAIL AND MAIL;” THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT DEMONTRATE “DUE DILIGENCE;” THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the process server did not demonstrate due diligence in attempting to serve defendant, therefore the court did not acquire personal jurisdiction:

“Service of process upon a natural person must be made in strict compliance with the statutory methods of service set forth in CPLR 308” … . “Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where personal service under CPLR 308(1) and (2) cannot be made with due diligence” … . “The term due diligence is not defined by statute, and is interpreted on a case-by-case basis” … . To satisfy the “due diligence” requirement, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the process server made genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment … . “The failure to serve process in an action leaves the court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and all subsequent proceedings are thereby rendered null and void” … .

… [T]he process server’s prior attempts at service did not demonstrate due diligence. Two out of three of the process server’s prior attempts at personal delivery at the defendant’s residence occurred during weekday hours when it could reasonably have been expected that the defendant was either working or in transit to or from work. The prior attempts were made on Thursday, April 17, 2008, at 6:15 p.m.; on Saturday, April 19, 2008, at 1:30 p.m.; and on Monday, April 21, 2008, at 8:20 a.m. The Saturday attempt occurred at a time when the defendant may have had reasons not to be home. The process server averred that a neighbor confirmed that the defendant resided at that address, but gave a negative reply when asked if the neighbor was aware of the defendant’s normal routine and place of business. Attached to the affidavit of service were the results of a “people at work” search, which revealed a company address for the defendant. Yet the process server made no inquiries about the defendant at that address before resorting to affix and mail service. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff failed to act with due diligence before relying on affix and mail service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeFilippo, 2025 NY Slip Op 05933, Second Dept 10-29-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “due diligence” in attempting to serve a defendant. Here several failed attempts at defendant’s residence was not enough. The process server did not attempt to serve defendant at work before resorting to “nail and mail.”​

 

, ,

CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS WILL NOT SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to “pierce the corporate veil” should not have been granted: The allegations in the proposed amended complaint were “conclusory” rather than fact-based:

“‘Broadly speaking, the courts will disregard the corporate form, or, to use accepted terminology, “pierce the corporate veil,” whenever necessary “to prevent fraud or to achieve equity”‘” … . “‘Generally, a plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury'” … . The mere contention that a corporation was completely dominated by its owners or conclusory assertions that a corporation acted as the owners’ “alter ego,” without more, will not suffice to support the equitable relief of piercing the corporate veil … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether the owner has ‘abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form’ include whether there was a ‘failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and use of corporate funds for personal use'” … . Moreover, even under the liberal standards of CPLR 3025(b), the proposed amended complaint must still sufficiently allege the material elements of the cause of action asserted … .

Here, the proposed amended complaint contains only conclusory allegations that the Berkovics [the principals of defendant corporation] breached a settlement agreement, thereby acting in bad faith and in furtherance of their own interests, and that the Berkovics exercised complete domination over the defendant in the transaction at issue and, in doing so, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. The proposed amended complaint fails to assert that the Berkovics acted other than in their alleged capacity as the principals of the defendant or that they failed to respect the separate legal existence of the defendant. Thus, the proposed cause of action seeking to pierce the corporate veil was palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit as it was speculative and conclusory … . Anderson v ML Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05931, Second Dept 10-29-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight in the the nature of the allegations required to “pierce to corporate” veil. The allegations must be fact-based. Conclusory or speculative allegations will not suffice.

 

, ,

THE SURETY BOND, A CONTRACT, WAS UNAMBIGUOUS AND MADE NO MENTION OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE SURETY THEREFORE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE ARGUMENT THAT CPLR 5001 MAKES PAYMENT OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST MANDATORY WAS REJECTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the terms of the surety bond governed whether the surety was obligated to pay prejudgment interest. Because the bond, a contract, did not mention prejudgment interest, the surety was not obligated to pay it. The argument that CPLR 5001 makes an award of prejudgment interest mandatory, regardless of the language of the surety bond, was rejected:

Here, the contract states that the surety will “pay for labor, materials, and equipment furnished for use in the performance of the [c]onstruction [c]ontract”; importantly to this case, there is no commitment to remit — or even mention of — prejudgment interest. “Surety bonds — like all contracts — are to be construed in accordance with their terms under established rules of contract construction. . . . [A] surety’s obligation upon its undertaking is defined solely by the language of the bond and cannot be extended by the court” … . In the matter before us, the damage claimed by plaintiff is the amount of prejudgment interest it did not receive in the judgment against the surety. However, under the clear and unambiguous terms of the payment bond, the surety had no obligation to remit same. Stone Cast, Inc. v Couch, Dale Marshall P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 05860, Third Dept 10-23-25

Practice Point: CPLR 5001 does not make payment of prejudgment interest mandatory in breach of contract cases. The language of the surety bond, a contract, controls.​

 

, , , ,

THE CLASS HAD STANDING TO SEEK DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE AND MONETARY RELIEF BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS THE COUNTY REAL PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM WAS IRRATIONAL, DISCRIMINATORY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESULTING IN A SHIFT OF THE TAX BURDEN FROM THE WEALTHIER PREDOMINANTLY WHITE COMMUNITIES TO THE LOWER INCOME PREDOMINANTLY NONWHITE COMMUNITIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Barros, determined the class of property owners in Nassau County had standing to  seek declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief stemming from the “irrational, discriminatory and unconstitutional” real property tax system:

… [T]he plaintiffs allege that the County’s tax assessment policies and procedures, i.e., its freeze on reassessments from January 2010 until January 2018 and its use of a grievance procedure which was voluntary and yielded unscientific results unrelated to property values, shifted the property tax burden from wealthier, predominantly white communities in the County to lower income, predominantly nonwhite communities. The plaintiffs allege that from 2010 through 2016, property taxes on 61% of the County’s residential and commercial properties increased by only $466, or 5%, on average, whereas the average increase for the other 39% of County properties was six times that amount: $2,748, or 35.7%. They allege that most properties in predominantly nonwhite communities comprised that 39%, which amounted to an aggregate shift in the property tax burden onto the plaintiffs and those similarly situated in a sum in excess of $1.7 billion. * * *

… [T]he allegations in the complaint, if true, … establish standing, including that the plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact … . The plaintiffs “allege[d] that publicly-criticized systemic inequities have resulted in [more expensive] properties increasingly shouldering less of a tax burden than properties worth far less” … and alleged that they were “being treated differently from other, similarly-situated property owners, and that no rational basis exists for this allegedly disparate treatment” … . Hall v Nassau County, 2025 NY Slip Op 05796, Second Dept 10-22-25

Practice Point: Here the allegations made by the plaintiff class demonstrated an injury-in-fact stemming from the county’s property tax system, i.e., a shift in the tax burden from the wealthier predominantly white communities to the lower income predominantly nonwhite communities. Therefore the class demonstrated standing to bring the lawsuit.

 

A DEFAULT JUDGMENT CANNOT EXCEED IN AMOUNT OR DIFFER IN THE KIND OF RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the default judgment must be vacated because the judgment awarded relief which was not requested in the complaint:

“A default judgment cannot exceed in amount or differ in the kind of relief from that demanded in the complaint” … . Moreover, “‘at an inquest, the court may not permit amendments of the pleadings which would broaden the scope of the inquest and increase the amount of damages provable by the plaintiff'” … . Here, the complaint only sought damages … in the principal sum of $20,357. Accordingly, the judgment must be vacated and the matter remitted … for entry of an amended judgment limiting the award … to the amount originally demanded in the complaint. Deutsch v Levy, 2025 NY Slip Op 05790, Second Dept 10-22-25

Practice Point: A default judgment cannot exceed in amount or differ in the kind of relief requested in the complaint.​

 

, ,

A JUDGE CANNOT ORDER DISCOVERY IN A FOREIGN JURISDICTION WHICH IS A SIGNATORY TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONVENTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have ordered discovery of a nonparty’s electronic devices in a foreign jurisdiction without complying with the Hague Convention. The nonparty, de Putron, resides in the island country of Jersey in the United Kingdom:

… Supreme Court improperly directed the discovery of de Putron’s electronic devices. First, “when discovery is sought from a nonparty in a foreign jurisdiction [that is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters … , application of the . . . Convention . . . is virtually compulsory” … . An order directing discovery of such a party without complying with the Hague Convention is therefore an “improper assertion of power beyond the . . . Court’s jurisdiction” … . As it is undisputed that de Putron is a nonparty in a foreign jurisdiction that is a signatory to the Hague Convention, Supreme Court lacked the power to direct discovery of his electronic devices without complying with the Hague Convention. Dorilton Capital Mgt. LLC v Stilus LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05744, First Dept 10-16-25

Practice Point: Here discovery of a foreign nonparty’s electronic devices was improperly ordered by the judge. The country in which the nonparty resided was a signatory to the Hague Convention. Compliance with the Convention is a prerequisite to any discovery order.

 

, ,

THE ADMINSTRATOR’S SIX-YEAR DELAYING IN SEEKING SUBSTITUTION FOR THE DECEASED PLAINTFF, COUPLED WITH THE PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE, WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the administrator’s six-year delay in substituting the estate for the deceased in this personal injury case, warranted dismissal of the complaint:

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made” … . CPLR 1021 provides that “[a] motion for substitution may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party” … and requires that such substitution “be made within a reasonable time” …. If substitution is not made within a reasonable time, “the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made” (CPLR 1021). “[T]he determination of whether the timing is reasonable requires consideration of several factors, including the diligence of the party seeking substitution, the prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or the defense has potential merit” … .

Here, the administrator’s protracted delay of almost six years in obtaining limited letters of administration so as to be substituted in this action, for which he provided no explanation in his initial motion papers and only an unsubstantiated, partial explanation in his reply attorney affirmation, demonstrated a lack of diligence. Furthermore, in this 16-year-old personal injury action, in which the deposition of the bus driver was never obtained, the administrator failed to rebut the defendants’ showing of prejudice arising both from the passage of time and the unavailability of the bus driver. Finally, the administrator did not submit in support of his motion the complaint, a bill of particulars, deposition transcripts, or any proof at all as to the potential merit of the cause of action. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the administrator’s motion and, in effect, denying the defendants’ application to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely seek substitution ..Watson v New York City Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 05718, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Here an administrator’s six-year delay in seeking substitution for the deceased plaintiff, coupled with prejudice to the defendant, warranted dismissal of the personal injury complaint.

 

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