You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE LANDLORD ENGAGED IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE APARMTENTS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hinds-Radix, determined plaintiff’s complaint alleging the landlord engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate apartments was properly dismissed. The opinion is too complex to fairly summarize here:

… [T]he deregulation of the plaintiff’s apartment was made in good faith … . Further, the late registration of the apartment as rent-stabilized, only after notification by the DHCR [Department of Housing and Community Renewal] of a change in the law several years in the making, does not indicate that [defendant landlord] was engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment.

“Fraud consists of ‘evidence [of] a representation of material fact, falsity, scienter, reliance and injury'” … . The elements of fraud must be pleaded, and each element must be set forth in detail (see CPLR 3016[b] … ). That requirement was not met in this case.

There are instances in which failure to timely register an apartment as rent stabilized could constitute evidence of fraud. Prior to 2016, and the DHCR’s blanket notification to landlords of the change in the law, there were landlords involved in litigation over failure to register apartments as rent stabilized who nevertheless persisted in that practice … ; attempted to obfuscate the regulatory status of the apartment … ; pressured and misled tenants … ; or even went so far as to engage in misrepresentations as to whether improvements were in fact made … . It is clear that the plaintiff’s apartment was in fact rent stabilized, but that fact was not evidence of fraud, and allegations of fraud based upon speculation are insufficient … . Gridley v Turnbury Vil., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03577, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

, , ,

THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMSSED AS TIME-BARRED; RPAPL 1304 IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, NOT A STATUTORY PROHIBITION WHICH WOULD TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined the defendant’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure action as time-barred, cancel the notice of pendency and cancel and discharge the mortgage (RPAPL article 15) was properly granted. The decision is too complex and factually specific to fairly summarize here (but well worth reading). One of the issues addressed was the difference between a statutory prohibition, which would toll the statute of limitations, and a condition precedent, which would not:

CPLR 204(a) provides that “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by a statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not part of the time within which the action must be commenced” … . RPAPL 1304, which the plaintiff argues is a “statutory prohibition,” requires that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower . . . , including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” RPAPL 1304 describes the required content and manner of service of the notice. “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … .

“A statutory prohibition and a condition precedent are separate concepts” … . The salient feature of a “statutory prohibition” is the plaintiff’s lack of control. Since a plaintiff has complete control over the acts necessary to effectuate compliance with a condition precedent, a condition precedent is not a statutory prohibition … . Thus, because the plaintiff had control over when to serve the RPAPL 1304 notice, and could have done so at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, RPAPL 1304 is not a statutory prohibition within the meaning of CPLR 204(a) … . Everhome Mtge. Co. v Aber, 2021 NY Slip Op 03574, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

,

LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION MAY BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed on the ground that it duplicated the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Those causes of action may be pled in the alternative:

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of the School District’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action asserted against it on the ground that those causes of action were duplicative of the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, as the plaintiffs may assert alternative Labor Law causes of action … . Cain v Ameresco, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03572, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DIRECTING THE FILING OF A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the conditional order of dismissal directing plaintiff to file a note of issue did not meet the statutory requirements of CPLR 3216 and, therefore, the action should not have been dismissed:

The conditional order of dismissal directing plaintiff to file a note of issue by February 28, 2019 or the action would be dismissed failed to adhere to the statutory procedure for dismissing an action for failure to file a note of issue. Specifically, the conditional order of dismissal failed to provide plaintiff with the requisite 90 days to file a note of issue, failed to specify the conduct constituting the neglect demonstrating a general pattern of delay, and did not constitute the requisite written notice because it was not signed by the parties (see CPLR 3216[a], [b][3] … ). Flecha v Neira, 2021 NY Slip Op 03548, First Dept 6-8-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 193, IMPROPER DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES, AND LABOR LAW 215, TERMINATION FOR COMPLAINING OF THE IMPROPER DEDUCTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated causes of action for violation of Labor Law 193 by making improper deductions from earned wages, and Labor Law 215, by firing plaintiff after she complained of unlawful deductions:

… [P]laintiff alleged that defendants “impermissibly and unlawfully made deductions from [her] wages including the operating costs and expenses of OFRM [her employer] such as, among other things, credit card fees, bank services bills and electric bills.” She also alleged that her draw and net bonus payments constituted “earned wages,” and that defendants had “unlawfully made deductions from [her] [w]ages.” …

Under Labor Law § 193(1)(b), “[n]o employer shall make any deduction from the wages of an employee, except deductions which . . . are expressly authorized in writing by the employee and are for the benefit of the employee.” In order to state a claim for a violation of § 193, “a plaintiff must allege a specific deduction from wages and not merely a failure to pay wages” … . Additionally, a “‘deduction is more targeted and direct than the wholesale withholding’ of wages” … . * * *

Labor Law § 215 provides, in pertinent part, that no employer “shall discharge, threaten, penalize, or in any other manner discriminate against any employee (i) because such employee has made a complaint to his or her employer . . . that the employer has engaged in conduct that the employee, reasonably and in good faith, believes violates any provision of [the Labor Law].” Schmidt-Sarosi v Offices for Fertility & Reproductive Medicine, P.C., 2021 NY Slip Op 03564, First Dept 6-8-21

 

SUBPOENAS RELATING TO CROSS CLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined subpoenas that related to cross claims should not have quashed

[Defendant’s] motion to quash the nonparty subpoenas … to obtain information related to … cross claims … (CPLR 3101[a][4]) should have been denied. Although the subpoenaed information was unrelated to the interpleader action, in New York, cross claims “may be asserted between defendants for any cause of action at all, whether or not related to the plaintiff’s main claim” ( … CPLR 3019[b]). As the requested information is relevant to the pending cross claims, they could be properly subpoenaed. Thus, we remand the matter for discovery to the extent the requested information is “material and necessary” to the cross claims (CPLR 3101[a][4] …). Feiger v Ray Enters., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03525, First Dept 6-3-21

 

,

THE EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) WAS SCHEDULED BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVED A CLAIM FORM; THEREFORE THE INSURER DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE UNDERLYING TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN STAGED AND CLAIMANT FAILED TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULED EOU’S (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that where an examination under oath (EUO) is scheduled before the insurance company’s of a claim form, the insurer need not submit the proof of mailing in compliance with 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 to obtain a default declaratory judgment. It was determined the underlying traffic accident was staged and claimant did not appear at scheduled EOU’s:

As to claimant Ronald Marcellus, plaintiff additionally provided sufficient proof that he failed to appear for an examination under oath (EUO) despite receiving proper notice, which vitiates the policy … . Generally, an insurer must provide proof that the EUO requests were timely mailed, within 15 business days of receipt of the prescribed verification forms, in compliance with 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 in order to obtain a default declaratory judgment … . However, that requirement does not apply where, as here, the EUOs are scheduled prior to the insurance company’s receipt of a claim form … . Since Marcellus failed to appear on two or more occasions and the EUO requests were sent prior to plaintiff’s receipt of a claim form, plaintiff did not need to demonstrate compliance for the verification requests under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Surgicore of Jersey City, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03536, First Dept 6-3-21

 

,

WHERE THE ORDER DISMISSING A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 AFTER A SEVEN-YEAR DELAY IN SEEKING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH CONDUCT DEMONSTRATING A GENERAL PATTERN OF DELAY THE SAVINGS CLAUSE OF CPLR 205 APPLIES AND THE ACTION MAY BE RE-COMMENCED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the initial foreclosure action was not dismissed for failure to prosecute and, therefore, the savings provision of CPLR 205 applied. The court noted that the seven-year delay in seeking a default judgment which resulted in the dismissal did not constitute “neglect to prosecute:”

For purposes of the savings provision of CPLR 205 (a), “[w]here a dismissal is one for neglect to prosecute the action made pursuant to [CPLR 3216] or otherwise, the judge shall set forth on the record the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … . Here, the first action was dismissed as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). In making this determination, Supreme Court noted that plaintiff waited almost seven years before moving for a default after defendant failed to answer and that plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking the default. Therefore … Supreme Court’s order dismissing the first action did not set forth on the record conduct that “demonstrate[d] a general pattern of delay” … . As such, under these circumstances, the second action does not fall outside the savings provision … . * * *

… [T]he Second Department recently ruled that the savings provision was still applicable to a subsequent action when the prior action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) for failure to move for a judgment against a defendant for “almost seven years” because the trial court did not include findings of specific conduct demonstrating a general pattern of delay in proceeding with litigation … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Jalas, 2021 NY Slip Op 03506, Third Dept 6-3-21

 

, ,

THE RECENT US SUPREME COURT CASE HOLDING THAT A STATE MUST CONSENT TO SUIT AGAINST IT IN A SISTER STATE DID NOT AFFECT THE DOCTRINE OF “WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY;” HERE NEW JERSEY WAIVED THE DOCTRINE BY PARTICIPATING IN THE FIRST TRIAL OF THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, in a comprehensive discussion which cannot be fairly summarized here, determined the defendant, New Jersey Transit, had waived sovereign immunity by participating in the first trial of this traffic accident case. The fact that, since the first trial, the US Supreme Court ( the Hyatt case) held a state may not be sued in a sister state without consent (the “consent to the jurisdiction of a sister state” issue) did not require a different result on the “waiver of sovereign immunity” issue:

There is no dispute that New Jersey Transit did not make a voluntary appearance in this action. It then argues that it made no clear statement by its litigation conduct that it was submitting to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, pointing out that it has taken a defensive posture from this action’s inception because it had no legitimate legal basis for objecting to New York’s jurisdiction until seven years after the action was commenced, when Hyatt was decided, in 2019. These arguments are an oversimplification of this substantive constitutional issue. The issue is whether New Jersey Transit undertook a litigation strategy that can be deemed a voluntary waiver of its sovereign immunity. * * *

We reject New Jersey Transit’s argument that the sovereign immunity defense was not available at the time it served its answer in this action. The doctrine of sovereign immunity as it applies to states has been available at least since … 1979. The Hyatt Court dramatically altered the sovereign immunity analysis … . Hyatt did not, however, give birth to the doctrine. We cannot help but see the obvious unfair tactical advantage of conceding liability and losing at the first trial on damages and then seeking dismissal of the second trial on damages several years later, based not on the merits of the action but on an alleged “new” defense of sovereign immunity. Belfand v Petosa, 2021 NY Slip Op 03522, First Dept 6-3-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INCREASED TRAFFIC RELATED TO AN EVENT AT DEFENDANT COUNTRY CLUB CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION CONTRIBUTING TO A COLLISION WITH A VEHICLE ATTEMPTING TO ENTER THE COUNTRY CLUB PREMISES; PLAINITIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY FROM THE COUNTRY CLUB REGARDING CROWD CONTROL, MARKETING, EVENT PLANNING, SAFETY PLANS, ETC. (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery from defendant country club was properly granted. Plaintiffs were injured in a collision when defendant driver made a left turn across plaintiffs’ lane of travel to enter the country club premises to attend a special event. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant country club did not take adequate measures to control the increased traffic generated by the event, thereby creating a dangerous condition:

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges a cause of action for negligence based on, as relevant here, breach of a special duty of care by defendant. The crux of plaintiffs’ theory of liability against defendant is that it organized and hosted an event that it knew or should have known would generate a large amount of traffic to the site, but failed to account for the impact of same, and said failure was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries. A review of plaintiffs’ demands evinces that they generally sought information regarding crowd control, marketing/advertisement materials, ticket sales, minutes concerning the planning of the event, copies of emergency management plans, safety plans and copies of any and all reports of past medical emergencies at the event. For the most part, the demands were concerned with the event held in 2019, as well as those held in the preceding five years. A review of the record reveals that the discovery sought is aimed at determining whether defendant created a dangerous condition by holding a large event, thus increasing vehicular and pedestrian traffic, with notice of the danger and failing to take appropriate precautions … . Rote v Snyder, 2021 NY Slip Op 03508, Third Dept 6-3-21

 

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