You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

SUPREME COURT ADDRESSED THE MERITS OF THE ACTION WITHOUT DISCOVERY AND TRIAL; THE COURT SHOULD ONLY HAVE DECIDED WHETHER PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MATTER REMITTED FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter to a different judge, determined this breach-of-contract/preliminary-injunction/declaratory-judgment/Article-78 proceeding should not have been decided on the merits without discovery, the filing of a note of issue and a trial. The court should have decided only whether petitioner was entitled to a preliminary injunction. Petitioner is a contractor hired by respondents to install a water system for snow-making for ski trails. Respondents terminated the contract for cause and petitioner brought an action for a preliminary injunction (prohibiting respondents from awarding the contract to others without competitive bidding), a declaratory judgment, and breach of contract:

… Supreme Court should have confined … its determination to whether petitioner was entitled to a preliminary injunction. … Supreme Court prematurely resolved the merits of petitioner’s declaratory judgment cause of action and respondents’ counterclaims, without first affording the parties their rights to discovery and a jury trial on the claims/counterclaims raised in the plenary action (see CPLR 3103 [a]; 4101 …), and without a note of issue and certificate of readiness having been filed. Moreover, Supreme Court did not acknowledge or address petitioner’s third cause of action for breach of contract, even though the plenary action involves, at its heart, a contract dispute. Although petitioner also asserted a cause of action for a declaratory judgment, the award of declaratory relief hinges on the resolution of the contract dispute — that is, whether respondents wrongfully terminated the contract for cause under the terms of the contract. Matter of Murnane Bldg. Contrs., Inc. v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 05756, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

WHERE RESPONDENTS MADE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITIONER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO ALLOW RESPONDENTS TO ANSWER THE PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that because respondents had made a pre-answer motion to dismiss petitioner’s cause of action, the motion court should not have granted the relief sought by petitioner. Rather the respondents should have been allowed to answer the petition:

… [T]he Supreme Court improperly awarded [petitioner] the ultimate relief sought on the second cause of action. Upon denying the respondents’ pre-answer motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court should have permitted the respondents to answer the petition (see CPLR 7804[f] …). … [W]e remit the matter … for the service and filing of an answer and the administrative record. Matter of O’Hara v Board of Educ., Yonkers City Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 05703, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRIES BEFORE DETERMINING NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING; MOTHER AND CHILD WERE IN CONNECTICUT, FATHER RESIDED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not make the required inquiries before finding New York did not have jurisdiction over this neglect proceeding. Mother and child lived in Connecticut and father resided in Westchester County:

The Family Court’s jurisdiction in this child protective proceeding is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act … . Nevertheless, the court failed to make any determination as to whether, despite the child’s Connecticut residence at the time of the filing of the petition, it had jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76 on the basis that New York was the child’s “home state” … . The court further failed to determine whether it had temporary emergency jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76-c … .. In addition, although a criminal proceeding was allegedly pending in Connecticut, the court failed to determine whether a “proceeding concerning the custody of the child [had] been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction,” in which case the court would have been required to stay the proceedings and communicate with the court of the other state (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[1] …). Finally, in the event that the court determined that it was an inconvenient forum and that Connecticut was the more appropriate forum, there is no indication that the court considered the required factors (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[2][a]-[h]). Moreover, upon such a finding, the court is required to “stay the proceedings upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[3]). Matter of Jenny M. (Thomas M.), 2021 NY Slip Op 05701, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS ABSENT GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ late motion for summary judgment should not have been considered on the merits:

CPLR 3212(a) provides, inter alia, that the court may set a date after which no motion for summary judgment may be made, and “[i]f no such date is set by the court, such motion shall be made no later than one hundred twenty days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown.” “‘[G]ood cause’ in CPLR 3212(a) requires a showing of good cause for the delay in making the motion” … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ motion was, in effect, for summary judgment. The plaintiffs do not dispute that they did not file their motion within the period specified by CPLR 3212(a), and no good cause for the delay was shown. Thus, the Supreme Court erred in considering the motion on the merits … , and should have denied the motion. Bennett v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 05687, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

, ,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION, ANY DEFICIENCIES IN PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (CPLR 3012-B) CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGING PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF STANDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over a partial dissent, determined deficiencies in the certificate of merit filed by plaintiff’s counsel in this foreclosure action (pursuant to CPLR 3012-b) cannot be the basis for defendants’ motion to dismiss alleging plaintiff’s lack of standing:

This appeal implicates the extent to which there is interplay between a CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss in the context of a residential mortgage foreclosure action, the attorney certification requirements of CPLR 3012-b, and the moving party’s burden of proof. For reasons analyzed below, we hold that a defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on the ground of the plaintiff’s lack of standing does not meet the affirmative burden of proof by merely relying upon any defects that might exist with the certificate of merit submitted by the plaintiff’s attorney under CPLR 3012-b, or otherwise, if the certificate of merit fails to address all potential aspects of standing. * * *

… [I]n a mortgage foreclosure action, a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) on the ground of the plaintiff’s lack of standing is not necessarily determined based on the adequacy or inadequacy of the certificate of merit filed by the plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to CPLR 3012-b. … The complaint serves the legal purpose of giving notice to defendants of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences intended to be proved, and the material elements of each cause of action … . The certificate of merit serves the ministerial and ethical purpose of requiring counsel to take good faith steps to assure that the action has merit, and to certify to the best of counsel’s knowledge, information, and belief that a reasonable basis exists for commencing the action and that the plaintiff has standing to recover on the note underlying the action.

Counsel’s reasonable beliefs contained in a certificate of merit are irrelevant to whether defendants, in moving to dismiss a complaint under CPLR 3211(a), establish their own defined burden of proof for the dispositive relief of dismissal. Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Matamoro, 2021 NY Slip Op 05741, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DOCTOR PRACTICED IN THE BRONX FOR PART OF EACH WEEK, THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF HIS BUSINESS AND HIS RESIDENCE WERE IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS TREATED; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE FROM BRONX TO WESTCHESTER COUNTY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined Supreme Court had properly granted defendants’ motion for a change of venue from Bronx County to Westchester County in this medical malpractice action. The defendant doctor (Goldstein) was described by plaintiff as an “individually-owned business” with a “principal office” in Bronx County. Dr. Goldstein treats some patients in Bronx County. But plaintiff was treated by Dr. Goldstein in Westchester County, where defendant business (Westmed) is located and where Dr. Goldstein resides:

Under CPLR 503(d), “[a] partnership or an individually-owned business shall be deemed a resident of any county in which it has its principal office, as well as the county in which the partner or individual owner suing or being sued actually resides.” * * *

While … registration documents confirmed … that Dr. Goldstein also worked in the Bronx, the venue statute does not deem an individually-owned business a resident of every county where it has an office or transacts business. To conclude otherwise would read the phrase “principal office” out of the statute. Lividini v Goldstein, 2021 NY Slip Op 05618, CtApp 10-14-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS; THE CONDUCT OCCURRED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PHYSICALLY IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TERMS, CONDITIONS OR EXTENT OF HER EMPLOYMENT WITHIN NEW YORK; THE FACTS WERE NOT DESCRIBED (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the hostile work environment claims under the Human Rights Law. The facts were not explained. The conduct occurred when plaintiff was “physically situated outside of New York” and did not have any impact on the “terms, conditions or extent of her employment” within New York:

Supreme Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Human Rights Law claims … . Defendants’ alleged conduct occurred while plaintiff was “physically situated outside of New York” … , and did not have “any impact on the terms, conditions or extent of her employment . . . within the boundaries of New York” … . “The fact that the alleged discriminatory acts . . . occurred in New York is insufficient to plead impact in New York” … . Jarusauskaite v Almod Diamonds, Ltd., 2021 NY Slip Op 05460, First Dept 10-12-21

 

, , , ,

AN AFFIDAVIT WITH A PARTY STATEMENT AND A NON-PARTY AFFIDAVIT WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN OPPOSTION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating the complaint in this dog-bite case, determined an affidavit which should have been disclosed because it contained the statement of a party was admissible in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment (the Davis affidavit). In addition, the affidavit of a non-party witness should have been considered by the court (the Cheetham affidavit). Even if the discovery demands are read to include the non-party affidavit, the affidavit was privileged as material prepared for litigation and therefore not discoverable. Supreme Court had precluded both affidavits on the ground they had not been disclosed:

… [W]e agree with the court that the affidavit of Davis, insofar as it contained a party statement of defendant, should have been disclosed. CPLR 3101 (e) “enables a party to unconditionally obtain a copy of his or her own statement[,] creating an exception to the rule that material prepared for litigation is ordinarily not discoverable” … . We nevertheless agree with plaintiff that the court abused its discretion in precluding Davis’s affidavit from consideration in opposition to the motion … . Defendant knew of Davis as a person of interest, which is why counsel sought to depose her approximately four months prior to making the motion, and defendant did not seek the assistance of the court to compel Davis’s production … . Inasmuch as plaintiff is not precluded from relying on Davis’s affidavit to oppose summary judgment, Davis is not precluded from testifying at trial … .

We also conclude that the court abused its discretion in precluding the Cheetham affidavit from consideration. Cheetham was listed as a witness in discovery and was deposed. Cheetham is not a party to this action, and his affidavit did not include any statements of a party. Even assuming that Cheetham’s statement was discoverable, we note that defendant’s discovery demands did not include a demand for nonparty witness statements. Assuming further that defendant’s discovery demands could be read to include a request for the statement of a nonparty witness, i.e., Cheetham, we conclude that Cheetham’s statement was conditionally privileged as material prepared in anticipation of litigation (see CPLR 3101 [d] [2 …). Defendant would be unable to show any substantial need for Cheetham’s statement inasmuch as Cheetham was deposed and therefore provided the substantial equivalent of the material contained in the statement … . Vikki-lynn A. v Zewin, 2021 NY Slip Op 05412, Fourth Dept 10-8-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY SENT 75 LETTERS TO HARASS DEFENDANTS; SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been sanctioned for harassing defendants:

In 2015, the plaintiff commenced this shareholder’s derivative action. After the action was commenced, the plaintiff and his attorney sent approximately 75 letters to various defendants, as well as those defendants’ family members, clergy, and attorneys. Therein, the plaintiff made disturbing references, among other things, to plagues, repentance, imprisonment, and punishment by the Internal Revenue Service for tax fraud. …

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, sanctions may be imposed against a party or the party’s attorney for frivolous conduct. Conduct is “frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]). “A party seeking the imposition of a sanction or an award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) has the burden of proof” … .

… [T]he defendants established that the plaintiff’s conduct in sending the subject letters was calculated to harass the defendants … . Glaubach v Slifkin, 2021 NY Slip Op 05323, Second Dept 10-7-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing to bring the action. Therefore the lack-of-standing affirmative defense should not have been struck:

… [A] plaintiff may demonstrate its standing in a foreclosure action through evidence that it was in possession of the subject note endorsed in blank, or the subject note and a firmly affixed allonge endorsed in blank, at the time of the commencement of the action (see UCC 3-202[2] …).

… The plaintiff attempted to demonstrate that it was the holder of the underlying note by attaching to the complaint a copy of the note with an allonge. The purported allonge contains an endorsement in blank, has no pagination, is undated, and contains no writing in any way to demonstrate its connection to the note or that it was firmly affixed thereto. An affirmation of the plaintiff’s counsel and an affidavit of a representative of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion, also failed to indicate that the purported allonge is connected to the note or that it was firmly affixed thereto. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish that the purported allonge was so firmly attached to the note as to become a part thereof, and thus failed to establish, prima facie, its standing to commence this foreclosure action … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Hollien, 2021 NY Slip Op 05321, Second Dept 10-7-21

 

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