,

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF COVID-RELATED PROCEDURAL CHANGES FOR CONDUCTING COMPLIANCE CONFERENCES; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the COVID-related law office failure was an adequate excuse and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of the action should have been granted:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal, as plaintiffs showed both a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 2005 …). Under the circumstances, law office failure constitutes a reasonable excuse for the default, since plaintiffs’ counsel was unaware that procedures for conducting compliance conferences had changed during the COVID-19 pandemic and, as a result, inadvertently failed to submit stipulations before a scheduled conference … .. Furthermore, plaintiffs demonstrated a meritorious cause of action by submitting the complaint, a bill of particulars, and the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony … . Defendants also were not prejudiced by plaintiffs’ failure to appear, and indeed, did not oppose the motion to vacate … . Willner v S Norsel Realties LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04111, First Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s attorney was not aware of procedural changes related to COVID and the action was dismissed because counsel did not submit stipulations before the scheduled compliance conference. This “law office failure” was a “reasonable excuse.” Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of the action should have been granted.

 

, ,

THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF EMPLOYER AND DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE RE: THE SALE OF DEFENDANT’S TAX PREPARATION BUSINESS TO PLAINTIFF AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SOLD HER CLIENT LIST TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-employer’s motion for a preliminary injunction in this violation-of-a-restrictive-covenant case should not have been granted. There were too many issues of fact about the nature of the parties’ agreement re: plaintiff’s purchase of defendant’s tax preparation business, including whether defendant turned over her client list to the plaintiff:

… [T]he plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, its former employee, to recover damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged … the parties entered into three agreements: a purchase agreement whereby the plaintiff purchased the defendant’s tax preparation business, including her client list; an agreement whereby the plaintiff employed the defendant as a tax preparer; and a confidentiality, nonsolicit, and noncompete agreement which, inter alia, contained restrictive covenants that, among other things, prohibited the defendant from soliciting the plaintiff’s clients. …

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clear right to relief and, thus, did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. “‘[A] restrictive covenant will only be subject to specific enforcement to the extent that it is reasonable in time and area, necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, not harmful to the general public and not unreasonably burdensome to the employee'” … . An employer’s interests justifying a restrictive covenant are limited “to the protection against misappropriation of the employer’s trade secrets or of confidential customer lists, or protection from competition by a former employee whose services are unique or extraordinary” … . Here, there are issues of fact as to what the parties agreed to, including whether the plaintiff purchased the rights to the defendant’s clients pursuant to the parties’ agreements and whether the plaintiff breached its own obligations pursuant to those agreements. Since these issues of fact exist, the plaintiff did not show a likelihood of success on the merits and, thus, failed to establish a clear right to preliminary injunctive relief … . R&G Brenner Income Tax Consultants v Fonts, 2022 NY Slip Op 04039, Second Dept 6-22-22

Practice Point: Where there are substantive questions of fact, a preliminary injunction should not be granted because a likelihood of success on the merits has not been demonstrated.

 

, , , ,

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NURSING HOME REFORM ACT (NHRA), THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE NURSING-HOME RESIDENT’S GRANDDAUGHTER DID NOT IMPOSE PERSONAL LIABILITY UPON THE GRANDDAUGHTER FOR PAYMENT OF THE COSTS OF THE RESIDENT’S CARE; THE GRANDDAUGHTER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE BREACH-OF-CONTRACT COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the admission agreement signed by the nursing-home resident’s granddaughter (who was appointed guardian of her grandfather’s property) did not impose personal liability upon the granddaughter for payment of the cost of her resident’s care (provided by the plaintiff facility). Therefore, plaintiff should not have seized the granddaughter’s personal funds. The default judgment in favor of plaintiff should have been vacated, and the breach-of-contract complaint should have been dismissed:

… [t]he admission agreement in this case is subject to the Nursing Home Reform Act (hereinafter the NHRA). As relevant here, the NHRA provides that “[w]ith respect to admissions practices, a nursing facility must . . . not require a third party guarantee of payment to the facility as a condition of admission (or expedited admission) to, or continued stay in, the facility” … . However, that prohibition “shall not be construed as preventing a facility from requiring an individual, who has legal access to a resident’s income or resources available to pay for care in the facility, to sign a contract (without incurring personal financial liability) to provide payment from the resident’s income or resources for such care” … .

The admissions agreement set forth the relevant contractual obligations of the granddaughter, and the admissions agreement demonstrates as a matter of law that it did not render the granddaughter a “third party guarantee of payment” … .”The admission[s] agreement merely required the [granddaughter] to facilitate payment from the . . . resident’s available income and resources, and only to the extent that the [granddaughter] had access to such income and resources and only if [the granddaughter] could do so without incurring any personal financial liability” … . …

.. [T]he plaintiff failed to adequately allege a breach of the granddaughter’s contractual obligation to facilitate payment to the plaintiff from the resident’s “income or resources” … . Nassau Operating Co., LLC v DeSimone, 2022 NY Slip Op 04029, Second Dept 6-22-22

Practice Point: The Nursing Home Reform Act (NHRA) prohibits holding a third-party who signs an admission agreement personally liable for the costs of a resident’s care. The agreement may only obligate the third party to pay the costs from the resident’s assets (over which the third party exercises control).

 

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLANTIFF TO APPEAR FOR A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION (INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION [IME]) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED HER MENTAL CONDITION IN CONTROVERSY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE NOTE OF ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motions to compel plaintiff to appear for an independent medical examination (IME) and to vacate the note of issue should have been granted:

We find that plaintiff’s mental condition is, in fact, in controversy. Plaintiff requests compensatory damages only for her alleged emotional distress, and she has testified that she experienced depression, anxiety, and dizziness, as well as headaches brought on by severe mental anguish (CPLR 3121[a]). As a result, a mental examination by a psychiatrist is warranted to enable defendants to rebut plaintiff’s causes of action for emotional distress … .

… [W]e grant defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue. Contrary to the certificate of readiness, discovery had not been completed, as plaintiff had not yet complied with the court’s directive to submit a Jackson affidavit detailing the process she had undertaken to search her social media post … . Lopez v Bendell, 2022 NY Slip Op 03990, First Dept 6-21-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff had placed her mental condition in controversy by testifying about depression, anxiety, dizziness and headaches caused by mental anguish. Defendant was therefore entitled to compel a psychiatric exam (an independent medical examination [IME]). Here defendant’s motion to vacate the note of issue should have been granted because defendant’s discovery was not complete.

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND A COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court did not have the discretion to grant leave to amend a complaint which had been dismissed by the First Department for lack of standing. After the appeal, plaintiff had cured the standing defect and Supreme Court allowed the amendment after the time-period to commence a new action (CPLR 205(a)) had expired:

This appeal raises the interesting question of whether a trial court has the discretion to grant a plaintiff leave to amend a complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) … , after the Appellate Division has already ordered the complaint dismissed, with direction to enter judgment. We dismissed the complaint because plaintiffs, as non-managing members of a manager-managed Delaware limited liability company, lacked capacity … or standing to act on behalf of the Company when they obtained a Certificate of Revival of the Company before filing a second amended complaint. After plaintiffs purportedly remedied this deficiency of proper standing, they sought to revive the dismissed action by seeking leave to file a third amended complaint. As aforementioned, after we had already ordered the complaint dismissed, the motion court granted plaintiffs leave to file the third amended complaint. At the time plaintiffs sought leave to amend, the time to commence a new action had expired, including the six-month grace period provided by CPLR 205(a). … Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court lacked discretion to grant plaintiffs leave to amend a complaint that had already been dismissed by this Court. * * *

Given this Court’s outright dismissal of the claims based on a finding of lack of standing, there was no action pending when plaintiffs moved for leave to file the third amended complaint. Thus, the trial court lacked any discretion or authority to grant plaintiffs such leave, where we had properly dismissed the second amended complaint before plaintiffs filed the motion to amend … .Favourite Ltd. v Cico, 2022 NY Slip Op 03987, First Dept 6-21-22

Practice Point: Once the complaint was dismissed for lack of standing by the First Department, there was no pending action. Once the time for commencing a new action pursuant to CPLR 205(a) had expired plaintiff was out of luck. Supreme Court did not have the discretion to grant plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint after it had been dismissed by the First Department.

 

THE COMPLAINT WAS NEVER PROPERLY AMENDED TO ADD DEFENDANT AS A PARTY PURSUANT TO CPLR 1003 OR CPLR 3025 REQUIRING DISMISSAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action against defendant (Adam) must be dismissed because the complaint was never properly amended to add Adam as a party:

This action must be dismissed as against Adam Max (Adam) because the complaint was never properly amended to add him as a defendant. CPLR 1003 requires leave of court or a stipulation by all parties to add parties, at least where, as here, parties have previously been added. CPLR 3025(a)-(b) similarly requires leave of court or a stipulation by all parties to amend a complaint, at least when done so late in the case. Because this procedure was not followed, the amended complaint must be dismissed, at least as against the newly joined Adam … . ALP, Inc. v Moskowitz, 2022 NY Slip Op 03962, First Dept 6-16-22

Practice Point: Here the amendment of the complaint to add a party was not done by leave of court or a stipulation of all parties/ The action against the added party was dismissed.

 

, ,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REFEREE’S FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE IF THE DEFENDANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE REFEREE’S REPORT BY SUBMITTING EVIDENCE DIRECTLY TO SUPREME COURT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that the referee’s failure to hold a hearing in a foreclosure action does not require reversal of a judgment of foreclosure if the defendant had an opportunity the challenge the referee’s report by submitting evidence directly to Supreme Court:

“CPLR 4313 requires a referee to notify the parties of the date and place for a hearing. However, hearings may be performed either on paper or by the taking of in-court evidence” … . Generally, “‘[a]s long as a defendant is not prejudiced by the inability to submit evidence directly to the referee, a referee’s failure to notify a defendant and hold a hearing is not, by itself, a basis to reverse a judgment of foreclosure and sale and remit the matter for a hearing and a new determination of amounts owed'” … . This is because “the referee’s findings and recommendations are advisory only; they have no binding effect and the court remains the ultimate arbiter of the dispute [as] CPLR 4403 expressly authorizes a court not only to reject the report but to make its own findings, to take or retake testimony or to order a new trial or hearing” … .

Here, defendants were provided with “an opportunity to challenge the referee’s report by submitting evidence directly to Supreme Court” upon plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report — an opportunity of which they did not avail themselves … .Carrington Mtge. Servs., LLC v Fiore, 2022 NY Slip Op 03951, Third Dept 6-16-22

Practice Point: Although the CPLR requires the referee in a foreclosure action to hold a hearing, the failure to hold the hearing is not reversible error as long as the defendant had the opportunity to challenge the referee’s report by submitting evidence directly to Supreme Court.

 

,

ONLY THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CPLR 205 (A) WHICH ALLOWS RE-COMMENCEMENT OF A LAWSUIT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF A DISMISSAL WHICH WAS NOT ON THE MERITS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the plaintiff, HSBC, could not take advantage of the six-month extension for commencing an action after a dismissal which was not on the merits (CPLR 205(a)) because HSBC was not the original plaintiff:

When a timely-commenced action has been dismissed on certain non-merits grounds, CPLR 205 (a) allows “the plaintiff” in that action “or, if the plaintiff dies,” the “executor or administrator” of the plaintiff’s estate, six months to commence a new action based on the same transaction or occurrence. The new action will be deemed timely based on the commencement of the prior action. Here, after the dismissal of a prior action brought by two certificateholders … —and after the statute of limitations expired—plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, National Association, in its capacity as trustee of a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trust, commenced this action against the sponsor, invoking CPLR 205 (a). Because HSBC was not “the original plaintiff” in the prior dismissed action … , we agree with the courts below that HSBC could not invoke CPLR 205 (a) to avoid dismissal of this time-barred claim … .* * *

HSBC is not “the plaintiff” in the prior action and the benefit of CPLR 205 (a) is unavailable to save its untimely complaint. … [T]his conclusion is consistent with the public policy underpinning the savings statute. CPLR 205 (a) is a remedial statute that … is “‘designed to insure to the diligent suitor'” an opportunity to have a claim heard on the merits … when the suitor has “initiated a suit in time” … but the claim was dismissed on some technical, non-merits-based ground. While the savings statute undoubtedly has a “broad and liberal purpose” … to “ameliorate the potentially harsh effect of the [s]tatute of [l]imitations” … , “[t]he important consideration is that, by invoking judicial aid [in the first action], a litigant gives timely notice to [the] adversary of a present purpose to maintain [its] rights before the courts” … . Where, as here, the litigant commencing the second action is not the original plaintiff, application of CPLR 205 (a) would protect the rights of a dilatory—not a diligent—suitor. By failing to bring the action within the statute of limitations, HSBC signaled that it had no intention to pursue its claims in court. CPLR 205 (a) does not apply and HSBC’s failure to commence an action within the statute of limitations is fatal. ACE Sec. Corp. v DB Structured Prods., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03927, CtApp 6-16-22

Practice Point: Only the original plaintiff can take advantage of CPLR 205 (a) which allows re-commencement of a lawsuit within six months of a dismissal which was not on the merits.

 

,

PLAINTIFF OFFERED NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SEVEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE ORDER OF REFERENCE AND THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE; THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE DELAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant was prejudiced by the unexplained seven-year delay between the order of reference in 2009 and the motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale in 2016, Therefore the accrual of interest during the delay should have been tolled:

… [A]pproximately seven years elapsed between the entry of the order of reference and the time the plaintiff moved for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. … [Plaintiff] failed to offer any explanation for this delay or establish that the defendant caused this delay, as the record demonstrates that the defendant’s motions and the stays due to the defendant’s bankruptcy petitions did not occur during the period for which the defendant sought to toll the accrual of interest. Since the defendant was prejudiced by the plaintiff’s unexplained delay of approximately seven years, during which time interest had been accruing, the interest on the loan should have been tolled from October 9, 2009, … until September 21, 2016 … . GMAC Mtge., LLC v Yun, 2022 NY Slip Op 03887, Second Dept 6-15-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff could not explain the seven-year delay between the order of reference and the motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Interest should not have accrued during the delay.

 

, , ,

THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE DESTROYED THE UNDERGROUND OIL TANKS WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE LEAKED, CONTAMINATING PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT OIL COMPANIES DID NOT DEMONSRTATE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TANKS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A DEFENSE; THEREFORE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION, NOT THE STRIKING OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff should have preserved the underground oil tanks which allegedly leaked and contaminated plaintiff’s property, but that striking the complaint was not warranted under the doctrine of spoliation. Because the defendants did not demonstrate the destruction of the tanks made it impossible to mount a defense, an adverse inference instruction was the appropriate sanction:

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for a violation of Navigation Law § 181, alleging that the defendants Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Getty Oil Company, Getty Refining and Marketing Company, and Getty Oil Company (Eastern Operations), Inc. (hereinafter collectively the defendants), discharged petroleum from underground storage tanks on the plaintiff’s property. * * *

… [T]he defendants demonstrated that the plaintiff had an obligation to preserve the tanks at the time they were disposed of, which was before the defendants had an opportunity to inspect the tanks, that the tanks were destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and that the tanks were relevant to the litigation … . However, the defendants failed to establish that their ability to prove a defense was fatally compromised by the destruction of the tanks, or that the destruction of the tanks was willful and contumacious … . Dagro Assoc. II, LLC v Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03884, Second Dept 6-15-22

Practice Point: Where spoliation of evidence does not take away the defendants’ ability to prove a defense, and where spoliation was not done willfully and contumaciously, striking the complaint is not warranted. The appropriate sanction is an adverse inference jury instruction.