You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

THE EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION CONSTITUTED AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS UNAFFECTED BY THE SUBSEQUENT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the email exchange between attorneys constituted an enforceable settlement of the personal injury action which was unaffected by the subsequent granting of summary judgment to the defendants:

The settlement agreement was stated in an email communication in which plaintiffs’ counsel stated, “This is to confirm settlement in the sum of $275,000. Please send release language and parties to be released.” Later that day, plaintiffs’ counsel sent a follow-up email, stating, “Please confirm we are settled.” Sea Crest’s counsel responded, “Confirmed. I’ll have release information to you ASAP.” …

The emails, which reduced the settlement to a writing in accordance with CPLR 2104, were “subscribed” within the meaning of the statute, as the sender was identifiable and there was no contention that Sea Crest’s counsel did not send any of the emails intentionally … . Rawald v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 06109, First Dept 11-9-21

 

, ,

THE PRE-ANSWER, PRE-DISCOVERY MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER OF TWO CORPORATIONS; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PART PERFORMANCE BY INACTION SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the pre-answer, pre-discovery motion to dismiss should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion; (2) there were questions of fact about whether there was a de facto merger of two defendant corporations; and (3) there was a question of fact whether the breach of contract action was barred by the statute of frauds (part performance). The “de facto merger” and “part performance” discussions are substantive and too detailed to summarize here. The Second Department noted that even inaction will satisfy part performance of a contract when inaction is a term of the oral agreement:

Supreme Court erred in converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment (see CPLR 3211[c] … ). The plaintiff objected to this procedure on the ground that he had not received any discovery, and no preliminary conference had taken place due to the pendency of the motion to dismiss, which was made only one month after this action was commenced. Indeed, a motion for summary judgment is premature when a party had no reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery, and discovery may result in disclosure of evidence relevant to the causes of action asserted in the complaint (see CPLR 3212[f] … ). Here, issue was not yet joined and there had been no opportunity to engage in discovery regarding the plaintiff’s allegations of successor liability and fraud with respect to the apparent transformation of [defendant] Labs into [defendant] Diagnostics. Therefore, converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment was premature.

… The defendants’ evidence did not establish as a matter of law that Diagnostics was not the de facto continuation of Labs … . * * *

Part performance in the form of inaction may … suffice to invoke the doctrine, if inaction is pleaded as a term of the oral agreement and alleged to be unequivocally referable to the oral agreement, and the element of detrimental reliance is present … . … [D]efendants failed to demonstrate … that the plaintiff did not partially perform by refraining from seeking to confirm the arbitration award, thereby rendering the statute of frauds inapplicable. Menche v CDx Diagnostics, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05964, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

,

THE ACTION WAS NOT COMMENCED UNTIL TEN DAYS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL DID NOT TIMELY COMPLETE SERVICE BY MAILING THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE LAW OFFICE FAILURE PRECLUDED AN EXTENSION FOR GOOD CAUSE AND THE LACK OF DILIGENCE PRECLUDED AN EXTENSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not demonstrate could good cause for failing to timely mail the summons and complaint to defendant and was not entitled to an extension of time to serve the defendant in the interest of justice. The court noted that law-office-failure precludes an extension for good cause, and the attorney’s lack of diligence in filing the action (ten days before the expiration of the statute of limitations) and in serving the pleadings ruled out an extension in the interest of justice:

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was entitled to an extension of time to serve Marin [defendant] for good cause, as she failed to establish that she exercised reasonably diligent efforts in attempting to effect proper service … . The plaintiff’s attorney’s mistake in failing to note, until pointed out in the defendants’ reply papers, that Marin had not been served by mail, amounts to law office failure, which does not constitute good cause … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish her entitlement to an extension of time for service in the interest of justice given the lack of diligence in commencing the action, which was not commenced until 10 days before the statute of limitations expired; the lack of diligence in effecting service; the more than six-month delay between the time the summons and complaint were filed and the time the plaintiff’s cross motion, inter alia, for an extension was made; and the lack of an excuse, other than law office failure, for the failure to effect timely service … . Jordan-Covert v Petroleum Kings, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05960, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN BRINGING THE UNTIMELY CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s untimely cross-motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because the delay in making the cross-motion was not satisfactorily explained:

Pursuant to CPLR 3212(a), courts have “considerable discretion to fix a deadline for filing summary judgment motions” … , so long as the deadline is not “earlier than 30 days after filing the note of issue or (unless set by the court) later than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown” … . Absent a “satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness,” constituting good cause for the delay, an untimely summary judgment motion must be denied without consideration of the merits … . However, an untimely cross motion for summary judgment may nevertheless be considered by the court “where a timely motion was made on nearly identical grounds” … .

… Supreme Court erred in considering the plaintiff’s untimely cross motion. The cross motion was made months after the deadline imposed by the court had elapsed, and the plaintiff offered no explanation for the delay. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, his cross motion did not raise nearly identical issues as [defendant’s] timely motion, which had a different factual basis and addressed substantively different violations of the Industrial Code … . Dojce v 1302 Realty Co., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05950, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

RES JUDICATA PRECLUDED CLAIMS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the causes of action for tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with business relations against defendant JAZ were precluded by the doctrine of res judicata:

“Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action” … . “One linchpin of res judicata is an identity of parties actually litigating successive actions against each other: the doctrine applies only when a claim between the parties has been previously brought to a final conclusion” … . “The doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the reconsideration of claims actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding, as well as claims for different relief against the same party which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction, and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding” … . “A pragmatic test has been applied to make this determination—analyzing whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage” … .

Here, the tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with business relations causes of action insofar as asserted against JAZ in this action could have been raised in the prior action, which arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as those presented in this action … . Jacobson Dev. Group, LLC v Grossman, 2021 NY Slip Op 05851, Second Dept 10-27-21

 

,

THE COURT NEVER ENTERED AN ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; THEREFORE THE TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION NEVER STARTED TO RUN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the time for interposing an answer in this foreclosure action never started to run because the court never entered an order deciding defendant’s motion to dismiss:

The Supreme Court, however, erred in granting those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference. In the order … , the court held that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) in abeyance pending the framed-issue hearing, and the defendant therefore had until 10 days after service of notice of entry of the order deciding that branch of the motion to file an answer … . Since the court failed to issue an order deciding that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) prior to granting those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference, the defendant’s time to file an answer had not yet begun to run and the defendant therefore was not in default … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the referee’s report cannot be considered a determination that, in effect, denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint … , as there is no evidence in the record that the parties consented to the reference, and the referee therefore lacked the authority to determine the issue of standing conclusively … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A.. v Sewell, 2021 NY Slip Op 05850, Second Dept 10-27-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONFORM THE PLEADINGS TO THE PROOF RE: PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL; DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE FAILURE TO PLEAD THE SUPPORTING ALLEGATIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been allowed to conform the pleadings to the proof re: piercing the corporate veil for two reasons: (1) defendant Chilled was prejudiced by the failure to plead facts supporting the alter ego theory; and (2) the proof at trial did not demonstrate Chilled was the alter ego of defendant EMB:

Chilled demonstrated that it was prejudiced in the preparation of its defense by the lack of notice that the plaintiff would seek to pierce EMB’s corporate veil or prove that Chilled was an alter ego of EMB … . In general, claims involving veil piercing or alter ego liability are fact-laden … . Chilled established that the lack of notice hindered its ability to present evidence that might have shown … that corporate formalities were respected or that EMB and Chilled dealt with each other at arms’ length. * * *

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish that Chilled exercised complete domination over EMB in the transaction with the plaintiff … . …

,,, [T]he plaintiff failed to establish that Chilled used its alleged domination of EMB to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff … . Americore Drilling & Cutting, Inc. v EMB Contr. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 05845, Second Dept 10-27-21

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (DSS) TO COMMENCE A NEGLECT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court does not have the authority to direct the Department of Social Services (DSS) to commence a neglect proceeding:

Neither DSS nor the attorney for the child disputes the ability of DSS to commence a neglect proceeding without leave of a court. They also do not dispute that Family Court, under Family Ct Act § 1034, may order DSS to conduct a child protective investigation and report its findings to the court. What is disputed is whether Family Court may order a child protective agency, such as DSS, to commence a neglect proceeding against a parent. …

“Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction that cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute” … . The relevant statute provides that a proceeding under Family Ct Act article 10 may be “originate[d]” either by “a child protective agency” or “a person on the court’s direction” (Family Ct Act § 1032 [a], [b]). In view of the express terms of the statute, Family Court has the authority to direct the commencement of a Family Ct Act article 10 proceeding. That authority, however, is limited to directing only a “person” to do so … — which DSS is not. Matter of Donald QQ. v Stephanie RR., 2021 NY Slip Op 05760, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

, , ,

PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (B), WHEN DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION APPEARED WITHOUT COUNSEL AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER THEY WERE ENTITLED TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for a finding whether defendants in this foreclosure action are eligible for assigned counsel, determined the judge did not comply with CPLR 3408 (b) at the settlement conference:

[CPLR 3408 (b)] provides that, at the initial foreclosure settlement conference, “any defendant currently appearing pro se[] shall be deemed to have made a motion to proceed as a poor person under [CPLR 1101]. The court shall determine whether such permission shall be granted pursuant to standards set forth in [CPLR 1101]” (CPLR 3408 [b]). Because defendants appeared at the June 2016 settlement conference without representation, each was “deemed to have made a motion to proceed as a poor person” and Supreme Court was required to determine such motion (CPLR 3408 [b]). Although Supreme Court erred in failing to adhere to its obligations under CPLR 3408 (b), the question remains whether defendants would have been eligible for the assignment of counsel based upon their financial circumstances. The record does not contain adequate information to render such a determination (see CPLR 1101 [a]). The eligibility for assigned counsel is a threshold issue that must be resolved before we can determine the merits of this appeal. As such, we withhold decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to render a determination as to defendants’ eligibility for assigned counsel as of the June 2016 settlement conference … . Carrington Mtge. Servs., LLC v Fiore, 2021 NY Slip Op 05743, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

,

THE MOTION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION TO QUIET TITLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND; THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION TO QUIET TITLE PURSUANT TO RPAPL ARTICLE 15 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint seeking to quiet title should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion. The complaint stated a cause of action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15:

… [T]he court should not have converted defendant’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3211(c), since plaintiffs did not agree to “charting a summary judgment course,” and the case did not involve a “purely legal question without any disputed issues of fact” … . Conversion of the motion prejudiced plaintiffs, who had no opportunity to respond to the contentions raised by defendant for the first time in reply … . …

“To maintain a cause of action to quiet title [to real property], a plaintiff must allege actual or constructive possession of the property and the existence of a removable cloud on the property, which is an apparent title to the property, such as in a deed or other instrument, that is actually invalid or inoperative” (…see RPAPL 1515; RPAPL 1501[1]). Here, the complaint adequately alleges facts that, if established, could support a finding that plaintiffs attained equitable title arising from the contract of sale they allegedly entered into with codefendant … for 25% of the property, as well as their payment of the agreed price and exclusive and actual occupancy of an apartment in the property … . Davis v Augoustopoulos, 2021 NY Slip Op 05772, First Dept 10-21-21

 

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