You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE GRANTING THE BANK’S MOTION FOR AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF SERVICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT AVERRED THE ADDRESS LISTED ON THE MORTGAGE WAS CORRECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing should have been held before allowing the bank to use an alternate method of court authorized service on defendant. Defendant’s correct address was on the mortgage:

… [T]he defendant’s submissions “raised a question of fact as to whether it was impracticable for the plaintiff to serve [him] with the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(1), (2), or (4), such that the plaintiff was entitled to an alternative method of court-authorized service pursuant to CPLR 308(5)” … . In particular, the mortgage listed an address for the defendant in Queens and the defendant averred that he lived at that Queens address at the time, and for several years after this action was commenced. Nothing in the plaintiff’s submissions established or even addressed whether or why it was impracticable to serve the defendant at the address listed on the mortgage. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should not have determined the defendant’s motion without holding a hearing … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Ming Kang Low, 2021 NY Slip Op 07572, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

,

THE ORDER ISSUED AFTER A TRAVERSE HEARING FINDING DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IS APPEALABLE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5501 (C); THE ORDER BRINGS UP FOR APPEAL WHETHER THE TRAVERSE HEARING WAS NECESSARY; THE MAJORITY C0NCLUDED THE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive concurrence and an extensive dissent, determined: (1) the order issued after a traverse hearing finding that defendant was not properly served in this foreclosure action was an appealable order pursuant to CPLR 5501 (c); (2) the order brings up for review the finding that a traverse hearing was necessary; and )3), defendants’ affidavit denying proper services was conclusory and, therefore, a traverse hearing was not required. The central issue in the decision is whether the order directing the traverse hearing had been brought for review by the order dismissing the complaint after the hearing:

… [O]ur jurisdiction is premised upon CPLR 5501(c), which directs that this Court “shall review questions of law and questions of fact on an appeal from a[n] . . . order of a court of original instance,” as well as the consistent line of cases from this Court holding that an appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction—issued after a hearing—also brings up for review the issue of whether a hearing was necessary to determine the motion … . Since an order directing a hearing to aid in the determination of a motion holds the determination of the motion in abeyance, the subsequent order made after the hearing is “the proper order to appeal from” … . OneWest Bank FSB v Perla, 2021 NY Slip Op 07550, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT EMPLOYER’S LATE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION TO ASSERT THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY WAS THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS ALREADY AWARDED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant employer’s (H&M’s) motion to amend its answer to allege Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s sole remedy in this Labor Law 240(1) action should have been granted, despite the lateness of the motion:

H&M’s initial failure to submit the proposed amended pleading (CPLR 3025[b]) was a technical defect that the court should have overlooked (see CPLR 2001), particularly since H&M attached the proposed amendment to its reply … . Plaintiff’s arguments that he was prejudiced by the amendment proposed in H&M’s cross motion, filed about three years after this action was commenced and two years after the workers’ compensation ruling was affirmed, are unavailing … . It is not dispositive that leave to amend was sought a few months after the note of issue was filed … .

The valid and final decision of a panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board, affirming a decision by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge that was based on a finding that H&M was plaintiff’s employer at the time of the accident, “bars [plaintiff] from relitigating the identical issue in this proceeding”  … . Chen v 111 Mott LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 07501, First Dept 12-28-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED GENDER DISCRIMINATION AND INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY’S WITHHOLDING REQUESTED LEGAL SERVICES AND ENGAGING IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s complaint against the defaulting attorney-defendant should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged defendant attorney discriminated against her by depriving her of the legal services she sought in connection with a sexual assault. Plaintiff alleged she was sexually harassed by defendant attorney. The matter was sent back to determine damages:

“[B]y defaulting, a defendant admits all traversable allegations contained in the complaint, and thus concedes liability, although not damages” … . “Some proof of liability is also required to satisfy the court as to the prima facie validity of the uncontested cause of action,” but the standard of proof is “minimal,” “not stringent” … .

… [P]laintiff averred that defendant … used his position of authority and confidence as an attorney to gain her trust, and then discriminated against her by withholding the legal services she sought in connection with litigation related to a sexual assault of plaintiff and using the pretext of offering such services to harass and subject her to unwelcome sexual conduct and advances. …

Plaintiff established claims under New York State Executive Law § 269(2)(a) (State HRL) that defendant … discriminated against plaintiff based on her gender … . [P]laintiff also made a prima facie showing that defendant[‘s] … discriminatory behavior violated the City HRL … . [P]laintiff established her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress by demonstrating that defendant … engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct through his deliberate and malicious campaign of harassment, while disregarding a substantial probability that doing so would cause severe emotional distress to her, and that his conduct did in fact did cause her severe emotional distress … . Petty v Law Off. of Robert P. Santoriella, P.C., 2021 NY Slip Op 07527, First Dept 12-28-21

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, AMEND A DISMISSAL ORDER FROM “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” TO “WITH PREJUDICE” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that Family Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, amend a dismissal order from “without prejudice” to “with prejudice:”

… Family Court erred in sua sponte amending its October 13, 2020 dismissal order from “without prejudice” to “with prejudice.” Family Court may, in its discretion, correct or amend an order, so as to cure mistakes, defects or irregularities in the order that do not affect a substantial right of a party (see CPLR 5019 [a] …) or to resolve any ambiguity in the order to make it comport with what the court’s holding clearly intended … . However, in the absence of a motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) or 5015 (a), Family Court lacks the authority to issue an amended or corrected order that alters its dismissal of a petition from “without prejudice” to “with prejudice,” as such alteration is one of substance … . Matter of Brian W. v Mary X., 2021 NY Slip Op 07332, Third Dept 12-23-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE TRUSTEE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ACCOUNTING, HE NEVER REPUDIATED HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES; THEREFORE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACCOUNTING WAS NOT TRIGGERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action for an accounting of a trust should not have been limited to the six years before the filing of the complaint. Although the trustee did not provide a requested accounting. the trustee did not openly repudiate his fiduciary duties, so the six-year statute of limitations was never triggered:

The statute of limitations for a cause of action seeking an accounting is six years (see CPLR 213 [1] … ). It is well settled that the limitations period begins to run only when ” ‘the trustee openly repudiates his [or her] fiduciary obligations’ ” and ” ‘a mere lapse of time is insufficient without proof of an open repudiation’ ” … . “The party seeking the benefit of the statute of limitations defense bears the burden of proof on the issue of open repudiation” … . Here, defendants “failed to sustain their burden of establishing that [defendant] had openly repudiated [his] fiduciary obligations to [plaintiffs] so as to start the statute of limitations clock” … . Although defendant failed to provide plaintiffs with an accounting, he never outright refused to do so. Further, defendant continued to conduct his duties as trustee by handling the taxes and expenses for the trust, and making the necessary disbursements to plaintiffs as beneficiaries. Thus, the cause of action for an accounting had not accrued at the time plaintiffs commenced this action. Massey-Hughes v Massey, 2021 NY Slip Op 07405, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION WITHOUT AFFORDING THE RESPONDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER IT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court. determined the granting of the Article 78 petition after denying a pre-answer motion to dismiss was not proper:

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, once such a “motion is denied, the court shall permit respondent to answer, upon such terms as may be just” (CPLR 7804 [f]). Here, in denying the motion, the court essentially treated respondents’ motion as one for summary judgment, searched the record, and granted summary judgment against respondents. It is well settled, however, that “if the court intends to treat the motion as one for summary judgment, it must give adequate notice to the parties that it so intends” … , and the court gave no such notice here. Additionally, only where “the facts are so fully presented in the papers of the respective parties that it is clear that no dispute as to the facts exists and no prejudice will result from the failure to require an answer” should a court grant the petition without permitting respondents to answer … . Mintz v City of Rochester, 2021 NY Slip Op 07389, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ACQUITTED OF CHARGES STEMMING FROM THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATION OF INSURANCE PROCEEDS DUE OTHER BENEFICIARIES AND THEN SUED TWO INSURANCE COMPANIES; THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, CONVERSION AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY DID NOT ACCRUE UPON ACQUITTAL AND WERE THERFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action that did not require plaintiff’s innocence in a criminal matter were time barred. Plaintiff was acquitted of charges stemming from the allegation she appropriated life insurance proceeds which were due to other beneficiaries. Plaintiff then sued two insurance companies alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty. None of those causes of action accrued upon plaintiff’s acquittal. All were therefore time-barred:

Contrary to … the court’s conclusion, those causes of action did not accrue at the time the criminal proceeding terminated. The termination of a criminal proceeding is relevant for claims for malicious prosecution and legal malpractice arising out of a criminal proceeding … . For those claims, a plaintiff is required to make a showing of innocence, and thus the claims do not accrue until the plaintiff can assert the element of his or her innocence on the criminal charges … . Plaintiff here does not need to assert her innocence on the criminal charges as an element of the causes of action for breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty … . Morrow v Brighthouse Life Ins. Co. of NY, 2021 NY Slip Op 07373, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, , ,

THE SUBROGATION ACTION BY THE INSURER OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE AFTER A GLOBAL SETTLEMENT WITH THE INJURED PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the subrogation action by plaintiff-insurer of the property owner, 60 LBC, in this slip and fall case was not precluded by the res judicata doctrine:

The court determined that plaintiff is barred by res judicata from pursuing 60 LBC’s [the property owner’s] coverage claim against defendant [the insurer of the landscaping business hired by 60 LBC to remove ice and snow] because it was resolved in the global settlement [with the injured party] reached during mediation. We disagree. Defendant [insurer of the landscaping company] was not a party to the underlying personal injury action or the third-party action, and the release resulting from the settlement of those actions makes no mention of any claims directly against defendant by 60 LBC or anyone else. Nor does the stipulation of discontinuance. The breach of contract claim asserted by 60 LBC against Red Cedar [the landscaping company] in the third-party action is separate and distinct from plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action against defendant [insurer of the landscaping company] here. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v Acadia Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 07351, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

, , , ,

AN APPELLATE COURT HAS THE POWER TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE MOTION COURT; THE REGULATION MANDATING CERTAIN VACCINES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE OR EXCEED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged, comprehensive opinion by justice NeMoyer which cannot be fairly summarized here, held the appellate court had the power to determine a request for a declaratory judgment which was not raised in the motion court, and the regulation mandating certain vaccines, 10 NYCRR 66-1.1(1) , does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or exceed the regulatory powers of the NYS Department of Health:

The legislature has determined that vaccines save lives. It has therefore established a mandatory “program of immunization . . . to raise to the highest reasonable level the immunity of the children of the state against communicable diseases” (Public Health Law § 613 [1] [a]). And by promulgating 10 NYCRR 66-1.1 (l), respondents-defendants-appellants (defendants) merely implemented the legislature’s policy in a manner entirely consistent with the legislative design. We therefore hold that 10 NYCRR 66-1.1 (l) is valid, does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and does not exceed the authority of its promulgator. Matter of Kerri W.S. v Zucker, 2021 NY Slip Op 07349, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

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