You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION MET THE DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 308 (4); THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should not have been granted. The process server for the bank in this foreclosure action satisfied the due diligence requirement for service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4):

There were four attempts to serve the defendants at their residence at times when they could reasonably have been expected to be found there, including attempts on a late weekday evening, an early weekday morning, a weekend evening, and a weekday afternoon … . As the plaintiff established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that personal jurisdiction was acquired over the defendants, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them … and decided the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the merits instead of, in effect, denying it as academic. Wilmington Trust Co. v Gewirtz, 2021 NY Slip Op 02562, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAIVED DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS DISPOSITIVE AND NEVER LITIGATED; THE BANK’S FAILURE TO TIMELY MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE BANK’S ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bank’s failure to move for a default judgment within one year required dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). The court noted that Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, held defendant waived dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) because the issue had never been litigated:

Although the Supreme Court keenly observed that the defendants had filed a notice of appearance in the first action in October 2014, it should not have, sua sponte, determined that such notice of appearance constituted a waiver of their right to seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), as the parties never litigated the issue of waiver. Since that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint had “‘dispositive import'” … , the court should have notified the parties of the waiver issue and afforded them an opportunity to be heard prior to determining the cross motion on a ground neither side argued. …

“The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory, inasmuch as courts ‘shall’ dismiss claims (CPLR 3215[c]) for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one-year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned” … . “‘Failure to take proceedings for entry of judgment may be excused, however, upon a showing of sufficient cause,’ which requires the plaintiff to ‘demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for the delay in taking proceedings for entry of a default judgment and that it has a potentially meritorious action'” … . Wells Fargo Bank v Aucapina, 2021 NY Slip Op 02561, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION A DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF STANDING IS NOT A DISMISSAL ON THE MERITS RE: RES JUDICATA; A SECOND DISCONTINUANCE WHICH IS NOT ON NOTICE IS NOT A DISCONTINUANCE WITH PREJUDICE RE: CPLR 3217 (C) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that a foreclosure action dismissed for lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits. The court further noted that a second discontinuance is not with prejudice, i.e., on the merits, unless it is on notice:

“‘Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties of all other claims arising out of the same transaction or out of the same or related facts, even if based upon a different theory involving materially different elements of proof'” … . However, “a dismissal premised on lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes” … .. Here, the instant action was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the 2014 action was dismissed for, inter alia, lack of standing, and that does not qualify as a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes … .

CPLR 3217(c) provides that “[u]nless otherwise stated in the notice, stipulation or order of discontinuance, the discontinuance is without prejudice, except that a discontinuance by means of notice operates as an adjudication on the merits if the party has once before discontinued by any method an action based on or including the same cause of action.” The dismissal of the second action after a previous discontinuance only operates as an adjudication on the merits if that second discontinuance is achieved by means of notice … . Here, after the 2010 action was discontinued by means of notice, the 2014 action was dismissed after the defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted. Since the 2014 action was not discontinued by means of notice, CPLR 3217(c) is inapplicable to this instant action. US Bank Trust, N.A. v Loring, 2021 NY Slip Op 02559, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

, ,

THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE APPLIES TO THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SUCH THAT EACH BREACH WAS AN ACTIONABLE EVENT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT BREACHES WHEN THE FIRST BREACH OCCURRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the continuing wrong doctrine applied to this breach of contract action such that each breach was actionable and, therefore, the statute of limitations for all subsequent breaches was not triggered by the first breach. The subjects of the contracts were commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS). The complaint alleged defendant CWCI breached a collateral management agreement (CMA):

Generally speaking, a claim accrues for statute of limitations purposes when “all of the factual circumstances necessary to establish a right of action have occurred, so that the plaintiff would be entitled to relief” … . However, the mere fact that a claim has accrued and the time to bring an action on it has commenced to run does not mean that a new claim, with a new limitations period, may not arise out of a new set of facts that forms part of a series with the original wrong. [Plaintiff] maintains that the allegations against CWCI comprise such a series of individual wrongs. Thus, it relies on cases such as Bulova Watch Co. v Celotex Corp. (46 NY2d 606 [1979]). There, a new claim, with a new limitations period, was held to have accrued each time the plaintiff, the obligee under a bond that guaranteed that the defendant roofer would make repairs necessary to ensure the watertightness of the plaintiff’s roof over the 20-year life of the bond, asked the defendant, to no avail, to repair a leak. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s failure to commence suit within the limitations period based on the initial leak did not bar the action. * * *

We find that the continuing wrong doctrine does apply to this case. CWCapital Cobalt VR Ltd. v CWCapital Invs. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02487, First Dept 4-27-21

 

, ,

THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES DID NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY TO CONTEST THE ANNUAL INSPECTION FEES; A NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY BASED UPON A STATUTORY DUTY WILL NOT FLY UNLESS THE STATUTE PROVIDES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION; A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT MUST BE DENIED IF IT SETS FORTH A CAUSE OF ACTION, THE MERITS OF THE REQUEST CANNOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the putative class action suit by two realty companies alleging the city charges annual fire and building code inspection fees but does not do the inspections was properly dismissed, with the exception of the request for a declaratory judgment. The suit alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, and requested a declaratory judgment finding the fee violates the NYS Constitution. The Second Department held that the fire and building codes do not give rise to a private right of action. With respect to municipal liability for negligence and the request for a declaratory judgment, the court wrote:

To sustain liability against a municipality engaged in a governmental function, “the duty breached must be more than that owed the public generally” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized that a special duty can arise “when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons” … . “To form a special relationship through breach of a statutory duty, the governing statute must authorize a private right of action” … [N]either the Uniform Code nor the Yonkers Fire Code gives rise to a private right of action. * * *

… [T]he Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the sixth cause of action, which sought a declaration, inter alia, that the inspection fees were invalid as an unconstitutional tax. “‘A motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action prior to the service of an answer presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable [disposition]'” … . WMC Realty Corp. v City of Yonkers, 2021 NY Slip Op 02440, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

, ,

A VIDEO OF AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEES WAS EITHER NEGLIGENTLY OR WILLFULLY LOST; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY RULED DEFENDANTS COULD NOT INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHICH CONTRADICTED AN AFFIDAVIT DESCRIBING WHAT THE VIDEO DEPICTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the sanction imposed on defendants for spoliation of evidence was appropriate. Defendants did not preserve the video of an incident in which plaintiff was allegedly assaulted by employees of the NYC Department of Homeless Services (DHS). Plaintiff’s attorney had specifically requested that the video be preserved. The day after the incident the video was reviewed by a security who described the video in an affidavit. When the video was not produced by the defendants, Supreme Court ruled the defendants could not introduce any evidence which contradicted the affidavit describing the video:

“A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense” … . “A culpable state of mind for purposes of a spoliation sanction includes ordinary negligence”… . “The Supreme Court has broad discretion to determine a sanction for the spoliation of evidence”  … .

Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the record demonstrates that the relevant video evidence was owned and controlled by DHS, that DHS possessed an obligation to preserve the evidence at the time that it was lost or destroyed, and that DHS negligently or wilfully failed to ensure its preservation … . Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the sanction imposed by the Supreme Court provided “proportionate relief” to the plaintiff and was not an improvident exercise of discretion … . Oppenheimer v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 02401, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED A HEARING IN THIS CUSTODY/PARENTAL ACCESS PROCEEDING AND SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 4213 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined a hearing should have been held in this custody/parental access proceeding. The court noted Family Court failed to set forth findings of fact as required by CPLR 4213 (b):

Parental access determinations should “[g]enerally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry” … . “While the general right to a hearing in [parental access] cases is not absolute, where ‘facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute,’ a hearing is required” … . Here, the record shows that there were disputed factual issues regarding the finding of the children’s best interests such that a hearing on the father’s parental access was required … . … [W]e note that the decision issued by the Supreme Court failed to comply with CPLR 4213(b) in that it did not set forth findings of fact … . Matter of Vazquez v Bahr, 2021 NY Slip Op 02397, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE BANK’S LETTER DE-ACCELERATING THE DEBT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s claim  he did not receive plaintiff-bank’s letter de-accelerating the debt (thereby stopping the running of the six-year statute of limitations) was not sufficient to warrant dismissal of the complaint as time-barred:

The filing of the summons and complaint in the 2009 action constituted a valid election by the plaintiff to accelerate the maturity of the entire mortgage debt … . This established that the mortgage debt was accelerated in February 2009, and that, without more, the applicable six-year statute of limitations had expired by the time the plaintiff commenced the instant action in March 2016 … .

In opposition, however, the plaintiff produced the January 2015 letter of de-acceleration and alleged that it had been sent to the defendant. Although the defendant claimed that he had never received the letter and had no knowledge of it, the mere denial of receipt was not sufficient to satisfy his burden on his cross motion for summary judgment of establishing that the plaintiff or its loan servicer did not properly send the notice to him … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hochstrasser, 2021 NY Slip Op 02380, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AFTER FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY AND BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE WAS FULLY ADMINISTERED BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO ASSERT THE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE IN AN AMENDED ANSWER AND TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in a personal injury action should have been allowed to amend its answer to assert judicial estoppel and should have been granted summary judgment on the ground the plaintiff did not disclose the cause of action in the bankruptcy proceeding:

On July 6, 2012, the plaintiff filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition … in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey … . … On September 3, 2014, the plaintiff allegedly was injured due to the defendant’s negligence. Thereafter, on July 2, 2015, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for his injuries. … On December 4, 2017, a final decree was entered declaring the bankruptcy estate fully administered, and the bankruptcy case was closed. …

… [T]he plaintiff is judicially estopped from pursuing this action because he failed to disclose its existence to the bankruptcy court during the pendency of the chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding … . The plaintiff had a continuing obligation to update his asset schedules throughout the pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding … . Flanders v E. W. Howell Co., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02276, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

,

THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE AND THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE PRECLUDED PLAINTIFF FROM PROVING HIS CASE, WHICH WAS BASED UPON A CONTRACT AND DECEDENT’S STATEMENTS ABOUT THE CONTRACT; ALTHOUGH THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE USUALLY WILL NOT PRECLUDE EVIDENCE AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, HERE IT IS CLEAR PLAINTIFF WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE HIS CASE AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this action based upon a contract between plaintiff and decedent was properly granted. The alleged copy of the contract was inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule, and any testimony about what the decedent said about the contract was prohibited by the Dead Man’s statute:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to adequately explain the unavailability of the original executed joint development agreement … . Moreover, even if the plaintiff met his threshold burden of explaining the unavailability of the original joint development agreement, he failed to establish that the copy was a reliable and accurate portrayal of the original … . The plaintiff’s proffered testimony that the copy was an exact copy of the original joint development agreement could not be offered at trial, as it was precluded by the application of the Dead Man’s Statute (see CPLR 4519 …). …

“New York’s Dead Man’s Statute by its terms makes testimony by an interested witness ‘concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and the deceased’ excludable only ‘[u]pon the trial of an action or the hearing upon the merits of a special proceeding'” … .Generally, “[e]vidence, otherwise relevant and competent upon a trial or hearing, but subject to exclusion on objection under the Dead Man’s Statute, should not predetermine the result on summary judgment in anticipation of the objection”… . Thus, evidence excludable at trial under CPLR 4519 may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment … . However, a trial is unnecessary if it is certain that there would be no waiver of the statute and that all of the proof would be excludable … . Where, as here, the sole evidence proffered by the opposing party is barred by the Dead Man’s Statute, an award of summary judgment is appropriate … . Stathis v Estate of Donald Karas, 2021 NY Slip Op 02330, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

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