You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO SEAL A CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS CIVIL IN NATURE AND CAN BE APPEALED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant could appeal the denial of his motion to seal his conviction record because the sealing procedure is civil in nature. In addition, the Second Department held defendant was entitled to a hearing on the motion:

Although a motion pursuant to CPL 160.59 relates to a criminal matter, “it does not affect the criminal judgment itself, but only a collateral aspect of it—namely, the sealing of the court record,” and, therefore, is civil in nature … . As such, the defendant is entitled to appeal as of right from the subject order denying the 2020 motion, which was made upon notice to the People (see CPLR 5701[a][2][v] …). * * *

By using the word “shall,” the Legislature clearly and unambiguously provided that when the motion is not subject to mandatory denial under CPL 160.59(3) and the district attorney opposes the motion, the motion court does not have the discretion to dispense with the hearing requirement, even where, as here, the court had held a hearing on the defendant’s prior CPL 160.59 motion ,,, , Further, CPL 160.59 is a remedial statute, and remedial statutes should be interpreted broadly to accomplish their goals … . People v Bugge, 2021 NY Slip Op 04718, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

, ,

THE RELEASE WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH; CPLR 2101, WHICH REQUIRES DOCUMENTS IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE WHICH ARE FILED OR SERVED BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION, DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE RELEASE WAS IN ENGLISH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the release executed by plaintiff with respect to defendant M & I was valid, despite the fact that plaintiff did not understand English:

A person who does not understand the English language is not automatically excused from complying with the terms of a signed agreement, since such person must make a reasonable effort to have the agreement made clear to him or her … . Here, the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff … demonstrates that the terms of the release were explained to the injured plaintiff before he executed the document … . Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court erred in determining that CPLR 2101(b) precluded consideration of the release. That statute provides that papers to be “served or filed shall be in the English language” and “[w]here an affidavit or exhibit annexed to a paper served or filed is in a foreign language, it shall be accompanied by an English translation and an affidavit by the translator stating his qualifications and that the translation is accurate” (CPLR 2101[b]). Here, the release was written in English. Ivasyuk v Raglan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04706, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS; DEFENDANT ORIGINALLY MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THEN ARGUED IN REPLY PAPERS IT HAD INTENDED TO MAKE A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant P & C Merrick’s motion to dismiss the complaint, asserted for the first time in reply papers, should not have been considered by the court. P & C Merrick had initially moved for summary judgment:

The Supreme Court erred in considering P & C Merrick’s contention, raised for the first time in reply, that it intended to move pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it rather than moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. There is no indication in the record that the plaintiff had an opportunity to respond to P & C Merrick’s reply and to submit papers in surreply … . Thus, the court should not have addressed the arguments raised by P & C Merrick for the first time in its reply papers … . As these new legal arguments were the basis for directing dismissal of the causes of action alleging specific performance and breach of contract, the plaintiff was prejudiced, and the Supreme Court erred in directing dismissal of those causes of action. Grocery Leasing Corp. v P&C Merrick Realty Co., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04701, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

, ,

FATHER ACKNOWLEDGED IMPREGNATING THE OLDEST CHILD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FATHER WAS PROPER; HOWEVER THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHEN MOTHER LEARNED OF THE PREGNANCY AND WHETHER SHE KNEW WHO THE FATHER WAS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined summary judgment on the abuse and neglect allegations against father was properly granted, but summary judgment on the abuse and neglect allegations against mother should not have been granted. Father acknowledged he impregnated the oldest child (who was eleven at the time of the birth). But there were questions of fact about whether mother knew who the father was and whether she know the child was pregnant and therefore in need of medical care:

Although it is a drastic procedural device rarely used in Family Court proceedings, Family Court may grant summary judgment in an abuse and neglect proceeding if no triable issue of fact exists … . On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the burden of establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . If this burden is met, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact … . In resolving a motion for summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party … .

* * * Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the mother and according her the benefit of every favorable inference, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that the mother knew or should have known of the father’s sexual abuse and impregnation of the oldest child or that the mother fostered or allowed the children to live in a sexually charged household.

* * * Although the mother provided some testimony as to when she learned of the pregnancy,[FN9] her testimony changed during the course of the lengthy hearing and a determination as to which, if any, of her accounts was credible is inappropriate on a motion for summary judgment … . Matter of Kai G. (Amanda G.), 2021 NY Slip Op 04682, Third Dept 8-12-21

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNOPPOSED; PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THE PARTIES STIPULATED TO AN ADJOURNED DATE; LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE; SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED ON THE MERITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the building owner’s (Findlay’s) motion for summary judgment in this wet-floor slip and fall case should not have been granted. Supreme Court had treated the motion as unopposed. However, plaintiff’s counsel was under the impression the parties had stipulated to an adjourned date. Leave to appeal was granted in the interest of justice. On the merits, plaintiff raised a question of fact about the adequacy of the “wet floor” warning:

[Supreme Court’s] order was not made upon notice and is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701[a]). However, this Court is authorized to deem a notice of appeal a request for leave to appeal and to grant such leave for a determination on the merits in the interest of justice (CPLR 5701[c] …). Given the facts of this case, this Court grants plaintiff leave to appeal in the interest of justice. Relying on CPLR 2214 and 2004, the motion court dismissed the complaint because plaintiff’s counsel did not offer a valid explanation for his late filing. However, counsel filed his opposition pursuant to what he thought was a valid stipulation.  …

Given the T-shaped nature of the hallway in this case, there are issues of fact as to whether the first warning sign was adequate, especially since the floor in that area was dry. Indeed, “[t]he mere placement of a “wet floor warning sign does not automatically absolve a defendant of negligence” … . We also note that this housing development housed primarily elderly and handicapped individuals. Zubillaga v Findlay Teller Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 04687, First Dept 8-12-21

 

, , ,

THE NYC COMPTROLLER’S SUBPOENAS FOR COVID-19-PLANNING-RELATED COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MAYOR DE BLASIO AND THE FIRST DEPUTY MAYOR WERE PROPERLY QUASHED BY SUPREME COURT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly quashed subpoenas issued by the NYC Comptroller seeking communications between Mayor de Blasio and First Deputy Mayor Fuleihan concerning the city’s COVID-19 pandemic planning. The First Department further held Supreme Court properly refused to quash other subpoenas issue by the Comptroller and properly ordered the depositions of two City witnesses without limitation of the scope of questioning:

In May 2020, in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency, Comptroller Scott Stringer commenced a [NYC Charter] Section 93(b) investigation of the City’s preparation for, planning for, and response to the pandemic to identify how those efforts impacted the City, its finances, residents and businesses. In connection with the investigation, the Comptroller issued a “request for information” to the City, which it sent to Dean Fuleihan, the City’s First Deputy Mayor, seeking information and communications related to COVID-19 … .

… [T]he court properly applied the public interest privilege to quash the document requests served on the Mayor and First Deputy Mayor. Generally, the public-interest privilege is a common-law rule that “attaches to confidential communications between public officers, and to public officers, in the performance of their duties, where the public interest requires that such confidential communications or the sources should not be divulged” because “the public interest would be harmed if the material were to lose its cloak of confidentiality” … . Matter of Comptroller of the City of N.Y. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04685, First Dept 8-12-21

 

A DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (CPLR 3215) IS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE IS NOT “WITH PREJUDICE” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that a dismissal of a complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) is not on the merits and therefore should not be “with prejudice:”

… [T]he court should not have directed dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, as “a dismissal under CPLR 3215(c) is a dismissal for a failure to prosecute and consequently [is] not a dismissal on the merits or with prejudice” … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brathwaite, 2021 NY Slip Op 04659, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DUE DILIGENCE IN ASCERTAINING THE NAME OF THE PARTY REFERRED TO AS “JOHN DOE” IN THE COMPLIANT RENDERING THE ACTION TIME-BARRED; ALTHOUGH THE COURT PROPERLY DEEMED PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE NAMED PARTY TIMELY FILED NUNC PRO TUNC, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE NAMED PARTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED RETROACTIVELY ONCE THE DEFECT WAS CURED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff should not have been allowed to substitute the party’s name (here Esther Shaskos) for the “John Doe” named in the complaint because the plaintiff did not demonstrate it exercised due diligence to timely ascertain Esther’s identity. Therefore the complaint as against Esther was time-barred. As for the complaint against Elliot Shaskos, who was named in the complaint, the proof of service was never filed. Although the filing failure is not a jurisdictional defect and therefore did not preclude ruling the proof of service timely filed nunc pro tunc, the default judgment against Elliot should not have been granted retroactively when the defect was cured. Elliot was given the opportunity to answer the complaint:

Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the caption to substitute Esther for the defendant “John Doe.” The court erred in applying the “John Doe” designation authorized by CPLR 1024 and the relation-back doctrine of CPLR 203(c) to bar application of the statute of limitations, because the plaintiff failed to establish that it “made diligent efforts to ascertain the unknown party’s identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations” … . …

The failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, that may be cured by motion, or sua sponte by the court in its discretion pursuant to CPLR 2004 … . … Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to deem proof of service to have been timely filed nunc pro tunc. In granting this relief, however, the court must do so upon such terms as may be just, and only where a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (see CPLR 2001 …). The court may not make such relief retroactive, to the prejudice of a defendant, by placing the defendant in default as of a date prior to the orde … . Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the Shashos’ cross motion which was for leave to serve and file an answer, and denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against Elliot (see CPLR 320[a]). Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Shasho, 2021 NY Slip Op 04632, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

,

THE MOTION TO RESETTLE REQUESTED A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN THE PARTIES’ RIGHTS WHICH CANNOT BE ADDRESSED BY RESETTLING AN ORDER; A MOTION TO RESETTLE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS CLERICAL ERRORS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to resettle the court’s order requested a substantive change in the parties’ rights which can not be addressed by resettling an order:

… [T]he court … granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to resettle the order … and thereupon deleted the provision directing that the defendant shall receive $284,069.66 of the proceeds from the sale of the subject property before the remainder is split equally between the plaintiff and the defendant.  * * *

“Resettlement is generally intended to remedy clerical errors or clear mistakes in an order or judgment when there is no dispute about the substance of what that order or judgment should contain” … . “It may be used where the order improperly reflects the decision or fails to include necessary recitals, but [it] cannot be used to obtain a ruling not adjudicated on the original motion or to modify the decision which has been made” … . …

The court’s determination … to reform the parties’ open court stipulation upon its finding that the parties did not intend to agree to the monetary award effectuated a substantive change in the parties’ rights, rather than the correction of a clerical error. Renaud v Renaud, 2021 NY Slip Op 04624, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO SEAL A CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS CIVIL IN NATURE AND IS THEREFORE APPEALABLE, NOT WITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF A CRIMINAL-PROCEDURE STATUTE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZING APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, determined the denial of a motion to seal a criminal conviction pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 160.59 is appealable. Appeals in criminal matters must be authorized by statute. The court deemed the motion to seal to be civil in nature ant therefore not subject to the strict restrictions on criminal appeals:

Where, as here, the court issuing the order being appealed from possesses both civil and criminal jurisdiction, appellate courts look to “the true nature of the proceeding and to the relief sought in order to determine whether the proceeding was criminal or civil” … . Where the relief sought is “quintessentially, of a criminal nature”… , or an integral part of an ongoing criminal investigation, the proceeding falls within the court’s criminal jurisdiction and an appeal may not be taken from an order issued therein in the absence of express statutory authority … . * * *

By contrast, even when an order is issued pursuant to a criminal investigation or relates to a collateral aspect of a criminal proceeding, if the nature of the relief sought is civil in nature and the order can be said to be final and does not affect the criminal judgment itself, courts have found the matter to be civil and appeals from such orders are not constrained by the rule controlling appeals from orders in criminal proceedings … . People v Coulibaly, 2021 NY Slip Op 04616, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

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