You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

SUPREME COURT, IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT “AFFILIATES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE OF A RELEASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Courts should have simply denied the motion to dismiss instead of deciding what parties were included in the term “affiliates” in the release at issue:

Supreme Court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that the word “affiliates” in the release entered into between plaintiffs and Siddiqui could not be read to include defendants Cernich and Huan Tseng … . The word “affiliates” may apply to individuals, and is “not commonly understood to apply only to entities” … . Furthermore, the arbitrator’s conclusion, in an earlier arbitration against different parties, that the release did not apply to nonparty Ming Dang does not serve as a conclusive basis for finding that the release did not apply to defendants. Accordingly, the scope of the release language with respect to Cernich and Tseng was ambiguous, and Supreme Court should have simply denied the motion to dismiss without determining the meaning of the release language as a matter of law. Apollo Mgt., Inc. v Cernich, 2022 NY Slip Op 00964, First Dept 2-15-22​

 

,

PLAINTIFF, A DISSOLVED CORPORATION, PROPERLY PURSUED CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES WHICH AROSE PRIOR TO DISSOLUTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-dissolved-corporation properly pursued claims and liabilities which arose prior to dissolution:

A dissolved corporation is permitted to pursue claims and liabilities that arose prior to dissolution as part of the winding up process (Business Corporation Law §§ 1005[a][1]; 1006[a][4]; [b] …). Plaintiff’s commencement of this litigation, as well as the settlement of other predissolution claims against defendant, and its use of settlement funds to satisfy its outstanding liabilities in the wage violations case, are expressly contemplated and authorized by Business Corporation Law § 1006(a)(4). Thus, it was error to find that plaintiff’s dissolution resulted in it lacking capacity to maintain this action against defendant for work performed before plaintiff was dissolved … .

Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff’s winding up period has not been so extended as to be considered unreasonable … . TADCO Constr. Corp. v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 00990, First Dept 2-15-22

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED IN 2009 WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED, IT WAS NEVER ABANDONED PURSANT TO CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TRIGGERED AND THE MOTION TO RESTORE THE 2009 ACTION TO THE CALENDAR IN 2018, AFTER THE SECOND (2015) FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the first foreclosure action (commenced in 2009), which was “administratively dismissed,” was not abandoned because the criteria in CPLR 3216 were not met. Therefore, the administrative dismissal did not trigger the statute of limitations and the motion to restore that action to the calendar (after the second foreclosure action commenced 2015 was dismissed as time-barred) should have been granted:

… [T]he conditional order of dismissal, which, in effect, served as a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, was defective in that it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the demand would serve as a basis for the Supreme Court, on its own motion, to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute (see id. § 3216[b][3] …). * * *

We reject the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff effectively abandoned the instant action by commencing the 2015 action. * * *

… [T]he plaintiff was not required to move to restore the instant action to the calendar within any specified time frame … . “[A] motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate an order is not subject to any specific time limitation” … . The marking-off procedures of CPLR 3404 do not apply to pre-note of issue actions such as this one … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Ali, 2022 NY Slip Op 00838, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE THE LACK OF JURISDICTION DEFENSE BY PARTICIPATING IN THE MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER SHE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action did not waive the lack of jurisdiction defense and demonstrated entitlement to a hearing on whether she was properly served:

… [B]y participating in the mandatory settlement foreclosure conference and subsequently contacting the plaintiff for settlement purposes, the defendant did not demonstrate a clear intent to participate in the lawsuit on the merits, and therefore she did not formally or informally appear in the action … . …

… [D]efendant sufficiently rebutted the presumption of proper service. The defendant submitted her own sufficiently factually detailed sworn affidavit in which she, inter alia, denied receipt of service, denied residing at the subject address at the time service allegedly was made, and averred that she had not lived there since September 2011 and that she had moved to Georgia in November 2013. Under these circumstances, a hearing to determine whether the defendant was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) was required … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Stroman, 2022 NY Slip Op 00869, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, , ,

THE FLORIDA DEFENDANTS ADVERTISED THROUGH A NATIONWIDE WEBSITE; THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFFS SOLICITED THE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF EITHER GENERAL OR SPECIFIC (LONG-ARM) JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs did not make out a prima facie case of general or specific (long-arm) jurisdiction over the Florida defendants in this breach of contract and fraud action. Through email correspondence the New York plaintiffs entered a contract for the creation of a “Dating App” for which plaintiffs allegedly paid $100,000. Plaintiff alleged defendants never provided the Dating App and sued in New York. The jurisdiction over the breach of contract action was analyzed under the general jurisdiction criteria, and jurisdiction over the fraud (tort) action was analyzed under the specific jurisdiction (long-arm) criteria:

In opposing the separate motions of [defendants], the plaintiffs asserted that jurisdiction over both defendants was proper pursuant to CPLR 301 and 302(a)(1) and (3). “Under modern jurisprudence, a court may assert general all-purpose jurisdiction or specific conduct-linked jurisdiction over a particular defendant”… . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, they did not make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction … . The complaint itself establishes that [the individual defendant] is domiciled in Florida and that [the corporate defendant] was incorporated in and has its principal place of business in Florida … . Further, the facts alleged, even if established, do not support a conclusion that [defendant corporation’s] contacts with New York were so “continuous and systematic” …  as to render it “essentially at home” in New York … .

Specific jurisdiction over a defendant is obtained through New York’s long-arm statute, CPLR 302. * * *

“The CPLR 302(a)(1) jurisdictional inquiry is twofold: under the first prong the defendant must have conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in the state, and under the second prong, the claims must arise from the transactions” … . …

The affidavits … establish that [the corporate defendant] advertises its services nationwide through a website that is not specifically directed toward New York residents or businesses. It is undisputed that the plaintiff … initiated the contact between the parties and solicited the defendants’ services in designing the Dating App. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, [the corporate defendant’s] website does not constitute transacting business within the State. Fanelli v Latman, 2022 NY Slip Op 00849, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, , , , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AND RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not prove standing to bring the action and compliance with the notice requirements of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304:

Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonge, which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the note, was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . …

… [T}he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that a notice of default in accordance with sections 15 and 22 of the mortgage was properly transmitted to the defendant prior to the commencement of this action … . …

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff failed to provide proof of the actual mailing of the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Further, although Victoria Wolff, an assistant secretary for the plaintiff, stated in an affidavit that the notices required under RPAPL 1304 were mailed, she did not aver that she had mailed the notices herself or otherwise claim to have personal knowledge of the mailing … . Raymond James Bank, NA v Guzzetti, 2022 NY Slip Op 00888, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, ,

THE FALSE IMPRISONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE IT ACCRUED WHEN DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED UPON ARRAIGNMENT, NOT WHEN HE WAS RELEASED UPON COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the false imprisonment cause of action was untimely because it accrued when plaintiff was released upon arraignment, not when he was released after completing his sentence:

Contrary to the motion court’s finding, the statute of limitations began to run not on the date on which plaintiff was released from incarceration, having completed his sentence, but on the date of his arraignment, when he was released on his own recognizance … . False imprisonment consists of detention without legal process and ends once the accused is held pursuant to legal process, such as arraignment … . Plaintiff’s incarceration following his conviction is not part of his false imprisonment claim and thus is not relevant to determining the date of expiration of the limitations period for the claim. Butler v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 00810, First Dept 2-8-22

 

, ,

CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE TENANTS IN THIS RENT-OVERCHARGE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined class certification in this rent overcharge action should not have been denied. The tenants alleged the landlord unlawfully deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits:

Class certification was improperly denied. The determination of whether plaintiffs have a cause that may be asserted as a class action turns on the application of CPLR 901. That section provides that “[o]ne or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all” where five factors — sometimes characterized “as numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” … . The party seeking class certification has the burden of establishing the prerequisites of CPLR 901(a) and thus establishing entitlement to certification … .

Here, plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating the prerequisites for class action certification under CPLR 901 and 902. Contrary to the motion court’s determination, plaintiffs established numerosity and typicality in their initial motion for class certification. The allegations in the amended complaint taken with the DOF tax bills showed that by June 2017, only 8 of 100 apartments were registered as rent-stabilized. … [T]his Court [has] held that similar bills were sufficient to establish numerosity, i.e., the number of deregulated units. As to typicality, the predominant legal question involves one that applies to the entire class—whether defendant unlawfully deregulated rent-stabilized apartments while receiving J-51 real estate tax abatement benefits. Cupka v Remik Holdings LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00812, First Dept 2-8-22

 

PLAINTIFF STARTED AN ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN NEW YORK; THEN DEFENDANT STARTED AN ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN ROMANIA; THE RESULTS OF THE ROMANIAN ACTION MAY BE DISPOSITIVE IN THE NEW YORK ACTION; THE NEW YORK ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE ROMANIAN ACTION, EVEN THOUGH THE NEW YORK ACTION WAS COMMENCED FIRST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Count, stayed the New York action pending the resolution of a related action brought by the defendant in Romania. the fact that the New York action was commenced first didn’t matter:

In March 2021, plaintiff brought this action to recover on a personal guaranty executed by defendant as consideration for a loan by plaintiff to two Romanian companies partly owned by defendant. Two months later, defendant brought suit against the instant plaintiff in Romania, seeking a declaration that the companies’ payment obligations under the underlying loan agreements were not enforceable.

… [T]he issues to be decided in the Romanian action are potentially dispositive of this action … . …

Although this action was filed first, chronology is not dispositive, “particularly where both actions are at the earliest stages of litigation” … . “[T]he practice of determining priorities between pending actions on the basis of dates of filing is a general rule, not to be applied in a mechanical way, regardless of other considerations” … . Here, both actions are in the early stages and were commenced reasonably close in time and the later-filed action is more “comprehensive” and involves more parties … . E D & F Man Sugar Ltd. v Gellert, 2022 NY Slip Op 00813, first Dept 2-8-22

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS PROPERLY IMPOSED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE POSTING OF AN UNDERTAKING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that, although the preliminary injunction in this breach of contract action was properly imposed, Supreme Court should have provided for an undertaking:

… [T]he court erred in granting the preliminary injunction without providing for an undertaking. With certain exceptions that are not applicable here, prior to the court granting a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must post an undertaking in an amount fixed by the court (see CPLR 6312 [b] … ), and that requirement may not be waived … . TDA, LLC v Lacey, 2022 NY Slip Op 00779. Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

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