You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED AN ACTION TO ENFORCE A MONEY JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC) ON THE IMPLICIT GROUND THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT AFFORDED DUE PROCESS IN THE PRC; THE US STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH SUPREME COURT’S RULING WAS BASED DO NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANTS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL IN THE PRC ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint sufficiently alleged that the money judgment obtained by plaintiff in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) comported with the principles of due process. The complaint alleged the defendants had an opportunity to be heard, were represented by counsel, and had a right to appeal the underlying proceeding in the PRC. Plaintiff’s action to enforce the foreign judgment should not have been dismissed based upon US State Department reports alleging a lack of judicial independence in the PRC:

The court should not have dismissed the action on the ground that the U.S. State Department’s 2018 and 2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (Country Reports) conclusively refuted plaintiff’s allegation that the PRC judgment was rendered under a system that comported with the requirements of due process. The Country Reports do not constitute “documentary evidence” under CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . In any event, the reports, which primarily discuss the lack of judicial independence in proceedings involving politically sensitive matters, do not utterly refute plaintiff’s allegation that the civil law system governing this breach of contract business dispute was fair. Shanghai Yongrun Inv. Mgt. Co., Ltd v Maodong Xu, 2022 NY Slip Op 01523, First Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff obtained a money judgment in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and sought to enforce it in New York. The complaint should not have been dismissed based upon US State Department reports alleging a lack of judicial independence in the PRC. The reports are not “documentary evidence” and the complaint adequately alleged defendants were afforded due process in the PRC.

,

IN AN ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT AGAINST NON-DEBTORS PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 52, THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL; THE ACTION IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, DESPITE THE DEMAND FOR MONETARY DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined petitioner’s request for a jury trial in this action seeking to compel non-debtors to make assets accessible for execution should have been stricken. Even though money damages were demanded, the essence of the action is equitable:

Petitioners commenced a “turnover” special proceeding under CPLR article 52 and sought a judgment among other things, “seeking . . ‘turnover’ of [defendant] NYGFI assets to satisfy [p]etitioners’ judgment . . . compelling the non-debtor [r]espondents to disclose, bring within the jurisdiction, and make accessible for execution . . . all cash, income, distributions and funds . . . including all membership interests in limited lability companies . . . and shares in corporations and interests in partnerships . . . and granting the appointment of a CPLR [a]rticle 52 receiver.”

… “[A] [p]laintiff is not entitled to a jury trial . . . [when] he seeks to enforce a judgment against a party other than the judgment debtor, which is an equitable claim” … .

… “[T]he rule is fundamental that where a plaintiff seeks legal and equitable relief in respect of the same wrong, his right to trial by jury is lost” … . Moreover, “[i]nclusion of a demand for money damages in the [pleading] does not, in and of itself, guarantee entitlement to a jury trial. Rather, it must be determined whether the main thrust of the action is for legal damages or for equitable relief” … . Matter of Uni-Rty Corp. v New York Guangdong Fin., 2022 NY Slip Op 01525, First Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: An action pursuant to CPLR Article 52 to enforce a judgment against non-debtors is equitable in nature. A jury trial is therefore not available. The demand for money damages (legal relief) did not alter the fact that petitioners are primarily seeking equitable relief.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THIS SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION AGAINST A SWISS CORPORATION REQUIRES THE APPLICATION OF SWISS LAW, NEW YORK IS THE PROPER FORUM; MOST ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT REFLECT A SUBSTANTIAL NEXUS TO NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York, not Switzerland, was the proper forum for this shareholders’ derivative action against a Swiss corporation, despite the need to apply Swiss law:

Defendants did not establish that in the interest of substantial justice, this action should be heard in another forum, namely, Switzerland (see generally CPLR 327[a] …). Adjudication of plaintiffs’ claims, which are undisputedly governed by Swiss law, will not place an undue burden on New York courts … . New York courts are frequently called on to apply the laws of foreign jurisdictions and in this case, there is no indication that the relevant law, which is from only one foreign jurisdiction, is in dispute or is distinctly abstruse … . That plaintiffs seek certain nonmonetary relief that may not be available or enforceable in Switzerland does not cut in favor of dismissal because defendants can seek to limit the damages sought and plaintiffs are now willing to withdraw their requests for nonmonetary relief as against [defendant corporation].

Defendants do not claim that litigation in New York will cause them any hardship and although this matter could be litigated in Switzerland, Swiss courts do not permit trial by jury, which could pose some hardship to plaintiffs … . Moreover, most of defendant-board members are residents of New York and none are residents of Switzerland … . The allegations in the complaint make clear that this action has a substantial nexus to New York and at this point, it appears that the majority of the witnesses and evidence will be located in the United States, principally New York … . Wormwood Capital LLC v Mulleady, 2022 NY Slip Op 01526, First Dept 3-10-22

​Practice Point: Although this shareholders’ derivative action is against a Swiss corporation and requires the application of Swiss law, New York is the proper forum. Most of the directors live in New York, most of the witnesses are in the US and New York, most of the evidence is located in New York, and allegations in the complaint demonstrate a substantial nexus to New York. Defendants did not show they will suffer any prejudice if the suit is heard here.

 

,

THE PETITION BROUGHT BY THE EXECUTOR PURSUANT TO SCPA 2103 SOUGHT DISCOVERY AND THE TURNOVER OF ANNUITY FUNDS WHICH HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO APPELLANT; THE SCPA 21O3 ACTION IS LIKE AN ACTION FOR CONVERSION OR REPLEVIN AND HAS A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; HERE THE MOTIONS TO AMEND THE ANSWERS TO ASSERT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT GROUND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the appellant’s motion to amend their answers to assert the statute of limitations defense, and the summary judgment dismissing the petition on that ground should have been granted. The petition, brought by the executor pursuant to SCPA 2103, sought discovery and the turnover of funds from an annuity which had been distributed:

… [T]he Surrogate’s Court should have granted that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for leave to amend their answers to add the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that she would be prejudiced or surprised by the proposed amendment. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendment was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit.

“A discovery proceeding pursuant to SCPA article 21 has been likened to an action for conversion or replevin and a three-year statute of limitations has been applied” … . “A conversion cause of action accrues and the limitations period begins to run on the date the conversion allegedly occurred”… . Here, the appellants produced evidence … that the annuity funds at issue were withdrawn and deposited into a joint bank account … [and] then transferred into a personal account … on December 31, 2012, and January 3, 2013. Since the petition was not filed until June 23, 2016, the appellants demonstrated, prima facie, that the petitioner’s claim was time-barred.

… [T]he petition did not allege a cause of action sounding in fraud or breach of fiduciary duty. Moreover, even if the petition had alleged breach of fiduciary duty, the applicable statute of limitations would still be three years because the petition sought money damages only and fraud was not essential to the claim … . Matter of Chustckie, 2022 NY Slip Op 01452, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: An action by an executor of an estate pursuant to SCPA 2103 seeking the turnover of funds already distributed is in the nature of a conversion or replevin action and has a three-year statute of limitations.

 

,

EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIMELY FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH A PRIOR DISCOVERY ORDER, THE JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WITH A VAILD 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint on the ground plaintiff failed to timely file a note of issue and failed to comply with a prior discovery order because plaintiff had not been served with a valid 90-day notice:

The Supreme Court improperly, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely file a note of issue and failed to comply with a prior discovery order of the court. Because the plaintiff was not served with a valid 90-day demand to file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), the court had no authority to dismiss the complaint based on the failure to timely file a note of issue … . Further, the plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with the discovery order did not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint … .Moreau v Cayton,, 2022 NY Slip Op 01450, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: The judge did not have the authority to, sua sponte, dismiss the complaint, even though plaintiff had not timely filed a note of issue and had not complied with a prior discovery order, because the plaintiff had not been served with a valid 90-day demand to file a note of issue.

 

, ,

THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE “HOLDER (OF THE NOTE)” REQUIREMENTS OF THE UCC WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action:

… [T]here was no evidence that the plaintiff is the assignee of note, and triable issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time the action was commenced. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code (see UCC 3-104[2][d] …). A “holder” is “the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession” (UCC 1-201[b][21][A] …). Where an instrument is endorsed in blank, it may be negotiated by delivery (see UCC 3-202[1]; 3-204[2] …). In the present case, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the note was properly endorsed in blank by an allonge “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof” when it came into the possession of the plaintiff (UCC 3-202[2] …). …

The plaintiff’s reliance on the assignments of the mortgage is misplaced “because the mortgage is not the dispositive document of title as to the mortgage loan” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Herod, 2022 NY Slip Op 01444, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: To establish standing, a bank has to prove it was the “holder” of the promissory note within the meaning of the UCC at the time the foreclosure action was commenced. Here there were questions of fact whether the note in the bank’s possession was endorsed in blank by an attached “allonge” as required by the UCC.

 

,

THE COUNTY WHERE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT OWNED A SEASONAL SECOND HOME (WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED AFTER COVID REACHED NEW YORK CITY) WAS NOT THE PROPER VENUE FOR THE DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lasalle, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county where plaintiff and defendant owned a seasonal second home, and where defendant moved when COVID reached New York City, was not the proper venue for the divorce action:

The parties to this divorce action primarily resided in New York County, while maintaining a seasonal second home in Suffolk County. In March 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic first reached New York City, the defendant retreated to the Suffolk County residence along with her pregnant and immunocompromised daughter and began spending more time there in order to assist the daughter during the pregnancy and after the child’s birth. In August 2020, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief in Suffolk County, on the ground that the parties were residents of Suffolk County. The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511 for a change of venue, and the Supreme Court denied the motion.

This case presents the issue of whether sheltering in place in a seasonal home creates a sufficient degree of permanence to establish residency at that location. We hold that it does not under the circumstances of this case. Because the parties’ stays in Suffolk County were only seasonal and temporary, we hold that neither of them were residents of Suffolk County at the time of the commencement of the action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511 to change the venue of the action from Suffolk County to New York County. Fisch v Davidson, 2022 NY Slip Op 01442, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: In this divorce action commenced in August 2020 (during the pandemic), the county were plaintiff and defendant owned a seasonal home, and where defendant moved when COVID reached New York City, was not the proper venue. New York County, where the couple primarily resided, was deemed the proper venue for the divorce proceedings.

 

, ,

THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK WAS INSUFFICIENT; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing to bring the action and Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion to amend the answer to assert lack of standing as a defense:

… [I]n support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted … a lost note affidavit of a representative of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, to which was annexed a copy of the consolidated note. However, the affidavit was insufficient to establish the facts preventing the production of the note … . …

… Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend her answer to assert the affirmative defense of lack of standing … . Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted (see CPLR 3025[b]). In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, a motion to amend should be granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … .. “Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine” … …. [T]he defendant did not waive the affirmative defense of lack of standing (see RPAPL 1302-a). Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Kreitzer. 2022 NY Slip Op 01441, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: The bank was unable to demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action because the lost note affidavit was insufficient. Even a late motion to amend an answer should be granted if there is no prejudice to the plaintiff. Here the motion to add the lack of standing defense to the answer should have been granted.

 

, , ,

THE TENANT HARASSMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; SUPREME COURT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION FOR THAT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court, determined the tenant harassment cause of action should not have been dismissed, noting that Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction for that cause of action:

… Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third cause of action, which alleged harassment in violation of Local Law No. 7 (2008) of City of New York (Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2005[d]). Contrary to the court’s determination, the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded that cause of action. Furthermore, the court was vested with subject matter jurisdiction to make a determination on that cause of action … .Akter v Zara Realty Holding Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 01434, Second Dept 3-9-22

​Practice Point: Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a tenant harassment cause of action pursuant to the the NYC Administrative Code.

 

,

DEFENDANTS WERE NOT SERVED WITH NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE; THEIR MOTION TO VACATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this foreclosure action were entitled to service of the notice of the foreclosure sale. Because the defendants were not served with the notice, their motion to vacate the foreclosure sale should have been granted:

“Parties to an action involving the sale of real property pursuant to a judgment, who have appeared in the action and have not waived service, are entitled to have served upon them, pursuant to CPLR 2103, all papers in the action, including a notice of sale” … , a court is authorized to set aside a judicial sale within one year thereafter, for failure to comply with the requirement as to notice, but only if a substantial right of a party was prejudiced by the defect.

Here, the defendants established that they were prejudiced by the lack of notice of the sale inasmuch as they were deprived of the opportunity to protect their interest in the subject property … . 38-12 Astoria Blvd., LLC v Ramos, 2022 NY Slip Op 01433, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: Defendants who have appeared in a foreclosure action are entitled to notice of the foreclosure sale. Here defendants were not served with the notice of sale. Their motion to vacate the foreclosure sale should 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