You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY SERVED BUT WAS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT DISMISSED THE APPEAL; THE APPELLATE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW A LATE FILING; MATTER REMITTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that, although the pro se inmate-petitioner did not timely file the notice of appeal, the notice was timely served and the Third Department could have exercised discretion to allow a late filing. The matter was remitted because the Third Department’s decision was silent about the reasons for dismissing the appeal:

… [P]etitioner argues that the Appellate Division should have applied a pro se inmate “mailbox rule” to deem the notice of appeal timely filed upon delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to the appropriate court.

CPLR 5515 (1) provides that an appeal is taken when, in addition to being duly served, the notice of appeal is “fil[ed] . . . in the office where the judgment or order of the court of original instance is entered.” The CPLR further clarifies that “papers required to be filed shall be filed with the clerk of the court in which the action is triable” (CPLR 2102 [a]). Thus, by its express terms, the CPLR indicates that filing occurs when the clerk’s office receives the notice of appeal. Indeed, “filing” has long been understood to occur only upon actual receipt by the appropriate court clerk … . A “mailbox rule” for filing would also contravene the clear distinctions between filing and service drawn by the legislature inasmuch as the CPLR directs that, unlike filing, “service by mail shall be complete upon mailing” (CPLR 2103 [b] [2]). .. * * *

… [T]he legislature has given courts the authority to excuse untimely filing under certain circumstances. CPLR 5520 provides that, “[i]f an appellant either serves or files a timely notice of appeal . . . , but neglects through mistake or excusable neglect to do another required act within the time limited, the court from or to which the appeal is taken . . . may grant an extension of time for curing the omission” (CPLR 5520 [a]). Matter of Miller v Annucci, 2021 NY Slip Op 04954, CtApp 9-9-21

 

,

THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE DRO TO SPECIFY PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A SHARE OF DEFENDANT’S DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT WOULD HAVE APPLIED THE LACHES DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the doctrine of laches did not apply and defendant could recoup a lump sum disability retirement payment made to plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendant were divorced and a stipulation provided plaintiff would receive her marital share of defendant’s retirement benefits under the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS). A Domestic Relations Order (DRO) was filed in 2010. In 2011 the NYSLRS approved the DRO with respect to ordinary retirement but was silent on disability retirement. In 2019 the NYSLRS approved defendant’s 2016 disability retirement application and a retroactive lump sum payment was made to defendant and plaintiff. In 2019 defendant moved to amend the DRO to specify plaintiff was not entitled to the disability retirement benefits. Supreme Court denied the motion applying the doctrine of laches. The dissent apparently agreed the laches doctrine was properly applied:

“Laches is defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right as, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time, more or less great, and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, operates as a bar in a court of equity . . . The essential element of this equitable defense is delay prejudicial to the opposing party” … . “The mere lapse of time, without a showing of prejudice, will not sustain a defense of laches” … .

Here, the court found that defendant should have sought to amend the DRO in 2011, after receiving the letter from NYSLRS. But at that time, defendant was not eligible for and had not applied for a disability retirement. When his disability retirement application was approved in February 2019 and defendant became aware that plaintiff’s distribution would accordingly increase, he promptly moved to amend the DRO. Moreover, even if there was a delay here, plaintiff utterly failed to make a showing of prejudice … . Taberski v Taberski, 2021 NY Slip Op 04804, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, ,

A SCHOOL FACULTY MEMBER WHO YELLED “BE QUIET” INTO A MICROPHONE, THE LOUDNESS OF WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S CHILD, DID NOT BREACH A DUTY OWED TO THE STUDENT; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district was entitled to a directed verdict in this action which alleged plaintiff’s daughter was injured when a faculty member used a microphone to tell the students to be quiet. It was alleged loudness of the command caused injury:

In order to prevail on a negligence claim, ” ‘a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom’ “… . On appeal, defendant disputes the element of breach only. To that end, the standard to which defendant and its employees are held is “that degree of care which a reasonable [parent] of ordinary prudence would exercise under the circumstances, commensurate with the apparent risk involved” … . Further, “[w]hen a duty exists, nonliability in a particular case may be justified on the basis that an injury is not foreseeable” … .

Although the proof at trial reflected that a school faculty member had “yelled” two words into a microphone and “was really loud” in doing so, there was no proof presented that those words were spoken in a manner or at a volume that was unreasonable, foreseeably unsafe, or in violation of any applicable standard of care. In other words, “[w]ithout knowing what is ‘too loud’,” “there [was] no standard of care by which a jury could determine on the evidence presented that defendant[] had breached a duty owed to plaintiff”… . Because there was no “rational process by which the [jury] could base a finding in favor of [plaintiff]” on the element of breach, we conclude that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict … . Joni C. v Cheektowaga-Sloan Union Free Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04859, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, , , ,

NO NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS REQUIRED IN THIS NUISANCE, TRESPASS AND INVERSE TAKING ACTION AGAINST A VILLAGE BECAUSE MONEY DAMAGES WERE INCIDENTAL TO THE DEMAND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a General Municipal Law notice of claim was not required in this action for nuisance, trespass, inverse taking and injunctive relief against a village. The village had installed drainage pipes in the roadway near plaintiff’s property and then repaved the road. Plaintiff alleged water runoff from the roadway flooded his property caused the foundation to collapse. Because the action was essentially for money. No notice of claim was necessary because the money damages were deemed incidental to the demand for injunctive relief. The court noted that a trespass and a taking may be pled in the alternative:

“[I]t is well settled that a notice of claim is not required for an action brought in equity against a municipality where the demand for money damages is incidental and subordinate to the requested injunctive relief” … . Viewing the amended complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff … , we conclude that the four remaining causes of action alleged continuing harm and primarily sought equitable relief … .

… “[T]he coincidental character of the money damages sought is ‘truly ancillary to an injunction suit, i.e., there is a continuing wrong presenting a genuine case for the exercise of the equitable powers of the court’ ” … . …

Although “[a]n entry cannot be both a trespass and a taking” … , the issue here is the sufficiency of the pleading, and plaintiff sufficiently pleaded both causes of action, albeit in the alternative. Friscia v Village of Geneseo, 2021 NY Slip Op 04793, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; REFERENCE TO THE “ENFORCEMENT” OF THE LOAN DOCUMENTS INDICATED THE POSSIBILITY OF REPRESENTATION AFTER THE DATE OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs raised a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine rendered the legal malpractice action timely:

The continuous representation doctrine tolls the limitations period “where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” … , and ” ‘where the continuing representation pertains specifically to [that] matter’ ” … . Here, plaintiffs submitted communication between the Florida attorney and defendants in which the Florida attorney indicated that defendants’ role as New York counsel included “enforcement” of the 2014 loan transaction documents. … [W]e conclude that questions of fact exist regarding the extent of defendants’ representation of plaintiffs and, more specifically, whether “enforcement” of the loan documents contemplated a continued representation until the loan was paid in full and the transaction completed. Ray-Roseman v Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman, LLP, 2021 NY Slip Op 04841,, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, ,

THE NONDOMICILIARY DID NOT HAVE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK; NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THIS TRUST LITIGATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over this trust litigation:

In the petition, the settlor and beneficiary of the trust (decedent) sought an accounting and removal of respondent, a Virginia resident, as trustee. The trust was created in 1996 in New Jersey. At the time the trust was created, decedent was a resident of Illinois and respondent was a resident of Georgia. Respondent administered the trust from Georgia until he relocated to Virginia, and he administered the trust from Virginia thereafter. Decedent relocated to New York in 2016. Solely as a consequence of decedent’s choice of residence, respondent sent to New York occasional trust-related correspondence, including “five or six” checks disbursing trust assets.

… “Due process requires that a nondomiciliary have ‘certain minimum contacts’ with the forum and ‘that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ ” … A nondomiciliary has minimum contacts with New York if he or she “purposefully avails” himself or herself of “the privilege of conducting activities within” New York … . thereby ” ‘invoking the benefits and protections’ ” of New York’s laws … . Our focus is on ” ‘the relationship among the [respondent], the forum, and the litigation’ “… . We conclude that respondent lacks the requisite minimum contacts with the New York forum. He does not live, own property, or conduct business in New York. The first and only relationship that New York had to the subject trust was 20 years after its creation, when decedent became domiciled in New York and respondent disbursed trust assets to her in New York … . Matter of Murad Irrevocable Trust, 2021 NY Slip Op 04823, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

,

THE 2011 ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT WAS REVOKED BY THE 2017 REVOCATION OF THE ACCELERATION RENDERING THE 2018 FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 2018 foreclosure action was timely because the 2011 acceleration of the debt was revoked in 2017:

… [A]lthough the defendants demonstrated … the six-year statute of limitations began to run in July 2011, when the plaintiff accelerated the mortgage debt through its commencement of the 2011 action … , the plaintiff established that the April 2017 de-acceleration notice sent to the defendants revoked the acceleration of the mortgage debt. Since the March 2018 action was commenced within six years of the revocation of the mortage acceleration, the March 2018 action was not time barred … . Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … should have been denied. U.S. Bank N.A. v Papanikolaw, 2021 NY Slip Op 04777, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ANNULLED THE ELECTION BOARD’S DESIGNATION OF AN EARLY VOTING POLLING PLACE BECAUSE THE BOARD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATION MET THE ELECTION LAW REQUIREMENTS MANDATING A LOCATION ACCESSIBLE TO CITY RESIDENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined Supreme Court properly annulled the determination of the Rensselaer County Board of Elections designating an early voting polling pace pursuant to Election Law section 8-600. The 3rd Department also granted the motion to intervene in the Article 78 proceeding brought by the NAACP and three minority and/or disabled residents who argued for a polling place accessible to city residents dependent on public transportation:

… [I]n designating early voting polling places, the Board “shall have at least one polling place” in the City (as Rensselaer County’s most populous municipality) and, because the City has public transportation, “such polling place shall be situated along such transportation routes” (Election Law § 8-600 [2] [a]). Election Law § 8-600 (2) (e) further states that any early voting polling place “shall be located so that voters in the county have adequate and equitable access, taking into consideration population density, travel time to the polling place, proximity to other early voting poll sites, public transportation routes, commuter traffic patterns and such other factors the board of elections deems appropriate” (see 9 NYCRR 6211.1 [c]). * * *

… [W]e conclude that the Board did not adequately address “whether the early voting site[s are] on or near public transportation” (9 NYCRR 6211.1 [c] [2] [iv]). The failure to address that mandatory factor “precludes meaningful review of the rationality of” the Board’s siting determination, renders the decision arbitrary and capricious and, by itself, warrants annulment … . The Board failed to meaningfully address most of the other factors as well. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly granted the petition and annulled the Board’s determination designating early voting polling places for the 2021 election … . Matter of People of the State of New York v Schofield, 2021 NY Slip Op 04785, Third Dept 8-26-21

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANT’S CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT BLAMING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON HIS PRIOR ATTORNEY WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR VACATING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s (Echevarria’s) affidavit blaming the default in this foreclosure action on his prior attorney was not sufficient to support vacating the default judgment:

… [W]hile CPLR 2005 allows courts to excuse a default due to law office failure, it was not the Legislature’s intent to routinely excuse such defaults, and mere neglect will not be accepted as a reasonable excuse” … . “A conclusory, undetailed and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse” … .

Echevarria submitted an affidavit in which he asserted that his defaults “were due entirely to [the] negligence” of his prior attorney, who, without Echevarria’s knowledge, failed to file an answer to the complaint or opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment against Echevarria. According to his affidavit, Echevarria only learned of the defaults upon receiving notice of the foreclosure sale. We agree with the plaintiff that Echevarria’s claim of law office failure, which was based solely on the “conclusory and unsubstantiated” allegations in his affidavit, was insufficient to amount to a reasonable excuse … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Rodriguez, 2021 NY Slip Op 04784, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

, , ,

IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS COMPLICATED FORECLOSURE DECISION, THE 2ND DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED (1) WHEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED AND (2) THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, addressed (1) when evidence presented in reply can be considered and (2) how to meet the criteria of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

Supreme Court … should have considered the Lee affidavit … . … [T]he defendant did not object to the plaintiff’s submission of the Lee affidavit, despite its being submitted for the first time in reply, and does not raise any objection to its admission on appeal. In any event, “[a]lthough a party moving for summary judgement cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply” … , the Lee affidavit was an exception to that rule, as it was submitted in response to a specific argument raised for the first time in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion and in support of the defendant’s cross motion … , and the defendant could have responded to the Lee affidavit in his reply papers in further support of his cross motion … . * * *

… [W]hile the Lee affidavit was sufficient to lay a proper foundation for the admission of a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518(a) … , Lee failed to identify the records upon which she relied in making the statements, and the plaintiff failed to submit copies of the records themselves. “[T]he business record exception to the hearsay rule applies to a ‘writing or record’ … . . . [and] it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence, a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . Thus, Lee’s assertions as to the contents of the plaintiff’s records were “inadmissible hearsay to the extent that the records she purport[ed] to describe were not submitted with her affidavit” … . Moreover, while “a witness may always testify as to matters which are within his or her personal knowledge through personal observation” … , Lee did not attest to such personal knowledge regarding the physical whereabouts of the consolidated note during the relevant time … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Pickering-Robinson, 2021 NY Slip Op 04775, Second Dept 8-25-21​

 

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