You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHICH REGISTERS TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CONSENTS TO THE SERVICE OF PROCESS IN NEW YORK BUT DOES NOT CONSENT TO THE GENERAL JURISDICTION OF NEW YORK (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a two-judge dissent, determined that a corporation registered to do business in New York consents to the service of process in New York, but not to general jurisdiction in New York. The underlying lawsuit stemmed from a car accident in Virginia. Both Ford and Goodyear were sued. Neither the car or the tire were made or sold in New York:

Aybar [the New York resident who drove the car] purchased the vehicle in New York from a third party. Ford did not sell the vehicle in this state in the first instance, nor did Ford design or manufacture the vehicle here. Similarly, Goodyear designed, manufactured, and initially sold the tire in other states. It is undisputed that Ford was incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Michigan and that Goodyear was incorporated and has its principal place of business in Ohio. At all relevant times, Ford and Goodyear were registered with the New York Secretary of State as foreign corporations authorized to do business in this state and had appointed in-state agents for service of process in accordance with the Business Corporation Law. * * *

We have never conflated statutory consent to service with consent to general jurisdiction, and the fact remains that, under existing New York law, a foreign corporation does not consent to general jurisdiction in this state merely by complying with the Business Corporation Law’s registration provisions. Aybar v Aybar, 2021 NY Slip Op 05393, Ct App 10-7-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY PRECLUDED PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN’S TESTIMONY AND THE ADMISSION OF MEDICAL RECORDS IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The trial court had erroneously precluded some of the testimony of one of plaintiff’s treating physicians and the admission of another treating physician’s medical records. The defendant had waived any objection to the records by failing to object after service of plaintiff’s notice of intention to enter the documents:

At the trial on the issue of damages, the plaintiff called one of her treating physicians, Irving Friedman, as a witness. The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s application to preclude Friedman’s testimony concerning the cervical and thoracic regions of the plaintiff’s spine based upon a conceded error Friedman made wherein he misidentified the MRI of the plaintiff’s spine … . Under the circumstances of this case, any defects in Friedman’s opinions or the foundations on which those opinions are based “should go to the weight to be accorded that evidence by the trier of fact, not to its admissibility in the first instance” … .

In addition, the Supreme Court erred in precluding Friedman’s testimony regarding future treatment and possible need for future surgery, as Friedman had addressed these issues in his medical reports … .

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in precluding the admission of the medical records of another of the plaintiff’s treating physicians, Rubin Ingber, under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The defendant waived his right to any objection to the admission of the records as business records, as he failed to timely object after having been served with the plaintiff’s notice of her intention to enter the documents into evidence pursuant to CPLR 3122- … . Benguigui v Racer, 2021 NY Slip Op 05318, Second Dept 10-6-21

 

, ,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO INCLUDE DEFENDANT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS THE RESULT OF “WILFUL NEGLECT;” THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1523, DEFENDANT’S “WILFUL-NEGLECT” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s affirmative defense to the reforeclosure should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff had not named defendant in its original foreclosure action, apparently because a quitclaim deed adding defendant to the title was not discovered in the title search. Defendant demonstrated there had been a prior foreclosure action in which defendant had been named as a party. Therefore, there was a question of fact whether the failure to name defendant in the original foreclosure action was the result of “wilful neglect:”

To prevail in a reforeclosure action, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defect in the original foreclosure action “was not due to fraud or wilful neglect of the plaintiff and that the defendant or the person under whom he claims was not actually prejudiced thereby” (RPAPL 1523[2] [emphasis added]).

Pursuant to the language of RPAPL 1523 … the plaintiff had the burden of demonstrating … both that the defect in the underlying foreclosure action was not the result of fraud or the wilful neglect of the foreclosure plaintiff, and that the defect did not prejudice the defendant (see RPAPL 1523[1], [2]). * * *

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the evidence of the prior foreclosure action in which the defendant was named as a party raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s failure to name her as a defendant in the underlying foreclosure action was the result of “wilful neglect” (RPAPL 1523[2] …). U.S. Bank N.A. v Lomuto, 2021 NY Slip Op 05363, Second Dept 10-6-21

 

,

DEFENDANT TENANT CLOSED ITS BUSINESS AND ABANDONED THE LEASED PROPERTY DUE TO THE COVID PANDEMIC; PLAINTIFF LANDLORD TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND CHANGED THE LOCKS; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE WHETHER PLAINTIFF ACCEPTED SURRENDER OF THE PREMISES AND THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to discovery in this action on a commercial lease. Defendant closed its furniture business due to the COVID pandemic and abandoned the leased property. Plaintiff took possession of the property and changed the locks. Therefore questions remained concerning whether plaintiff accepted surrender of the property and whether the accelerated rent amounted to a penalty:

Generally, a tenant is relieved of its obligation to pay full rent due under a lease where it surrenders the premises before expiration of the term and the landlord accepts its surrender … . A surrender by operation of law may be inferred from the conduct of the parties where “the parties to a lease both do some act so inconsistent with the landlord-tenant relationship that it indicates their intent to deem their lease terminated” … . “Such a surrender and acceptance severs the relationship between the parties upon the creation of an estate inconsistent with the prior tenant’s rights under the lease” … . Further, “conduct by the landlord which [falls] short of an actual reletting but which indicate[s] the landlord’s intent to terminate the lease and use the premises for his [or her] own benefit” may evince an intent to accept a tenant’s surrender of the premises … .

… [W]hile plaintiff had no duty to mitigate damages …, any actions it may have taken to offset the rent owed by defendants are relevant to determining the amount of damages … . Thus … the discovery sought by defendants is relevant to the issues presented in plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment … . … [B]ecause plaintiff seeks accelerated rent constituting liquidated damages … , defendants should have been afforded an opportunity to obtain information regarding whether the undiscounted accelerated rent amount was disproportionate to plaintiff’s actual losses and thus an enforceable penalty … . University Sq. San Antonio, Tx. LLC v Mega Furniture Dezavala, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05192, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED THE AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE HAD BEEN FILED; THE AMENDMENT ALLEGED ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly allowed the amendment of the bill of particulars after the note of issue had been filed in this Labor Law 241(6) action. The amendment alleged additional violations of the Industrial Code:

“[L]eave to amend the pleadings to identify a specific, applicable Industrial Code provision may properly be granted, even after the note of issue has been filed, where the plaintiff makes a showing of merit, and the amendment involves no new factual allegations, raises no new theories of liability, and causes no prejudice to the defendant”… . Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to amend the bill of particulars to allege violations of additional Industrial Code sections. The plaintiff’s amendment did not prejudice the defendants and did not involve new factual allegations or raise new theories of liability … . Palaguachi v Idlewild 228th St., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05127, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (CPLR 4401) FINDING THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY LIABLE FOR A BEDBUG INFESTATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for a judgment as a matter law (CPLR 4401), finding the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) liable for a bedbug infestation of plaintiffs’ apartments, should not have been granted:

A motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 should not be granted unless, affording the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the nonmovant against the moving party … . A court considering a motion for a directed verdict “must not ‘engage in a weighing of the evidence,’ nor may it direct a verdict where ‘the facts are in dispute, or where different inferences may be drawn or the credibility of witnesses is in question'” … .

… [T]he evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to NYCHA, did not establish that there is no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of NYCHA … . The evidence included the plaintiffs’ testimony, as well as the parties’ competing expert testimony regarding the appropriate protocols for the treatment of a bedbug infestation and competing conclusions by the expert witnesses as to whether NYCHA’s bedbug eradication efforts were appropriate. Although a landlord’s violation of a municipal ordinance, including, as relevant here, Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ 27-2017 and 27-2018, may constitute some evidence of negligence for the jury to take into account, it does not constitute negligence per se … . Aponte v New York City Hous. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 05114, Second Dept 9-29-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TAKE A TIMELY DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should have been dismissed because plaintiff’s excuse for failing to take a timely default judgment was inadequate:

To avoid dismissal of a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) as abandoned, a plaintiff must demonstrate both that there is a reasonable excuse for the delay and that the action is meritorious … . “Although the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, reversal is warranted if that discretion is improvidently exercised” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the excuse for the plaintiff’s failure to take proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year after the action was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part was not reasonable … . Throughout the course of this litigation, there were unexplained gaps of time where months of inactivity passed. Neither the need to move for the appointment of a successor guardian nor the plaintiff’s change of attorney which change occurred after the statutory one-year period had expired constitutes a reasonable excuse for the plaintiff’s failure to timely prosecute this action … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Whaley, 2021 NY Slip Op 05027, Second Dept 9-22-21

 

, , ,

PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PART OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; IN ADDTIION, THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant failed to demonstrate compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements in this foreclosure action. The proof of mailing to the correct address was first provided in reply papers for the motion to confirm the referee’s report and was not part of plaintiff’s initial summary judgment motion. And the proof of mailing was not supported by proof of the affiant’s knowledge of the mailing practices and procedures of the party which actually mailed the documents:

Although Cantu [plaintiff’s default servicing officer] stated in his affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and first-class mail to the defendants at the property, and he attached copies of 90-day notices with corresponding certified and first-class envelopes, Cantu did not attach the 90-day notices and envelopes addressed to the property where the defendants resided or any United States Post Office documentation showing that the purported mailings to the property actually occurred … . To the extent the plaintiff relies on copies of the 90-day notices with corresponding certified and first-class envelopes addressed to the property which were submitted for the first time in its reply papers on its subsequent motion … to confirm the referee’s report, those documents were insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden on its initial motion … for summary judgment … . “A party seeking summary judgment should anticipate having to lay bare its proof and should not expect that it will readily be granted a second or third chance” … . Further, while Cantu asserted that he had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s procedures for creating and maintaining its business records, he did not attest that he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Walz, the third-party entity that he acknowledged sent the notices … . Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish proof of standard office practices and procedures designed to ensure the notices were properly addressed and mailed … . Caliber Home Loans, Inc. v Weinstein, 2021 NY Slip Op 05021, Second Dept 9-22-21

 

,

A DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAS “FAILED TO APPEAR” IS NOT ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF A MOTION TO CONFIRM A REFEREE’S REPORT, NOTWITHSTANDING DICTA IN PRIOR 2ND DEPARTMENT RULINGS; A DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WHERE A DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION HAS DEFAULTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive discussion of the requirements for seeking a default judgment, including the meaning of “failure to appear,” determined the party which failed to appear in this foreclosure action was not entitled to notice of a motion to confirm a referee’s report. The extensive and detailed explanation of the applicable law was deemed necessary to clear up dicta in Second Department decisions which indicated such notice was required:

CPLR 3215(g)(1) applies “whenever application is made to the court or to the clerk.” By its plain language, it merely requires the plaintiff to provide “notice of the time and place of the application” for a default judgment … , which application must be held in a location authorized by CPLR 3215(e), and supported by, among other things, “proof of . . . the amount due” … . … [T]he purpose of the notice is to provide a defaulted defendant with the “opportunity to challenge the amount of damages sought by the plaintiffs” … . Contrary to [defendant’s] contention, CPLR 3215(g)(1) does not, once triggered, require a plaintiff to provide five days’ notice of every subsequent motion or application in the action … .

The 2017 motion was not an “application” for a default judgment within the meaning of CPLR 3215(b). Rather, the 2017 motion sought confirmation of the referee’s report and entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale, relief predicated on CPLR 4403 … . Since the 2017 motion was not an “application” within the meaning of CPLR 3215(b), the notice specified in CPLR 3215(g)(1) was inapplicable to the 2017 motion, and notice of that motion was instead governed by the general notice provisions applicable to all motions (see CPLR 2103[e]). As already observed, that section merely requires that notice be served on “every other party who has appeared” … . Since, at the time of the 2017 motion, [defendant’s predecessor] still had not made any appearance in the action, it was not, without more, entitled to notice of that motion … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Raghu, 2021 NY Slip Op 05016, Second Dept 9-22-21

 

, , , ,

THE FINDING BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WAS NEVER FILED AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL CITY LAW; THEREFORE THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR CONTESTING THE RULING NEVER STARTED TO RUN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 60-day statute of limitation for contesting a ruling of the board of zoning appeals (BZA) never started to run because the ZBA’s finding was never filed:

General City Law § 81-a (5) (a) imposes an affirmative duty on administrative officials charged with the enforcement of a local zoning law or ordinance in mandating that “[e]ach order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination . . . shall be filed. . . within five business days from the day it is rendered, and shall be a public record” … . General City Law § 81-a (5) (b) states that “[a]n appeal shall be taken within [60] days after the filingof any order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of the administrative official, by filing with such administrative official and with the board of appeals a notice of appeal, specifying the grounds thereof and the relief sought” (… see Code of the City of Ithaca § 325-40 [B] [1] [e]). Upon review of the record, it is impossible to ascertain exactly when the Planning Board determined that variances were not necessary. However, it is undisputed that no determination of such finding was ever filed. As General City Law § 81-a (5) (b) plainly provides that the time period for commencing a review proceeding is to be measured from the filing, and there was no filing, the time period for the administrative appeal never began to run … . Matter of Grout v Visum Dev. Group LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04997, Third Dept 9-16-21

 

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