You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE NOTE WAS NOT RECOVERABLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ACCELERATION CLAUSE; CLAIMS FOR UNPAID INSTALLMENTS DUE MORE THAN SIX YEARS BEFORE FILING SUIT WERE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the full amount of the note could not be recovered because it did not include an acceleration clause. In addition, claims for unpaid installments due more than six years before the filing of the lawsuit were time-barred:

“As a general rule, in the absence of an acceleration clause providing for the entire amount of a note to be due upon the default of any one installment, [a plaintiff is] only entitled to recover past due installments and [can]not unilaterally declare the note[] accelerated” … . “Rather, each default on each installment gives rise to a separate cause of action” … . Here, the record is devoid of any evidence of an acceleration clause and, thus, plaintiff was entitled to recover “only the amount of the installments past due at the time of trial” … . … “Where, as here, ‘a loan secured by a mortgage is payable in installments, separate causes of action accrue for each unpaid installment, and the statute of limitations begins to run on the date that each installment becomes due’ ” … . As defendant correctly asserted as a defense, inasmuch as plaintiff commenced this action on July 13, 2017, any claims for missed installments that accrued prior to July 13, 2011 were time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations … . Estate of Kathryn Essig v Essig, 2021 NY Slip Op 04301, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

,

PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING EXPOSURE TO TOXIC FUMES ARE TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO CPLR 214-C (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the causes of action alleging exposure to toxic fumes and hazardous substances were time-barred:

… [T]he … causes of action [alleging] the purported exposure to toxic fumes and hazardous substances (exposure claims) because they are untimely under the applicable three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214-c [2]). … [T]hat statute of limitations began to run from the date of discovery of plaintiff’s injury. Discovery occurs “when the injured party discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based” and not “when the connection between . . . symptoms and the injured’s exposure to a toxic substance is recognized” … . By submitting, inter alia, plaintiff’s deposition testimony and a workers’ compensation claim filed by him in 2011, defendants established that the exposure claims accrued in 2003 when he “made repeated visits to [his] treating providers for symptoms described in [his] bill of particulars as caused by the [chemical] exposure” … , and well over three years prior to the commencement of this action in 2014. To the extent that plaintiff relies on the one-year statute of limitations provided by CPLR 214-c (4), plaintiff cannot avail himself of that limitations period because, inter alia, plaintiff explicitly linked his exposure-related symptoms to exposure at Niagara Lubricant in his workers’ compensation claim, i.e., over one year prior to the commencement of this action … . Cotter v Lasco, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04293, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

,

A TIMELY BUT DEFECTIVE ATTEMPT TO COMMENCE AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH CANNOT BE CURED BY A SECOND ATTEMPT AFTER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner’s Article 78 action should have been dismissed because it was not properly commenced within four months. An attempt to commence the action was timely made, but the petition was returned:

An article 78 proceeding must be commenced within four months of the final determination under review (see CPLR 217[1]). Such a proceeding is commenced when the clerk of the court receives the petition in valid form … . Although petitioners attempted to file the petition in Queens County within four months, they did not do so in a manner which was then authorized (see CPLR 304[b]; 22 NYCRR 202.5-b[a], 202.5-bb[a]). The petition was returned to petitioners, who filed it after the four-month period had passed. The petition was untimely, and the court had no discretion to extend the statute of limitations … . Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the deficiency in their initial filings is not subject to correction pursuant to CPLR 2001 so as to render the proceeding timely, as the failure to file the papers required to commence a proceeding constitutes a nonwaivable, jurisdictional defect … . Matter of Heffernan v New York City Mayor’s Off. of Hous. Recovery Operations, 2021 NY Slip Op 04276, First Dept 7-8-21

 

, ,

A SETTLEMENT EMAIL WILL BE DEEMED SIGNED BY THE SENDING ATTORNEY WITHOUT RETYPING THE ATTORNEY’S NAME IN THE EMAIL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, overruling precedent, determined it is no longer necessary for an attorney to retype his or her name in an email stipulation of settlement. As long as  the attorney’s name appears in the “prepopulated” area of the email it will be deemed to have been signed by the attorney:

We now hold that this distinction between prepopulated and retyped signatures in emails reflects a needless formality that does not reflect how law is commonly practiced today. It is not the signoff that indicates whether the parties intended to reach a settlement via email, but rather the fact that the email was sent. Since 1999, New York State has joined other states in allowing, in most contexts, parties to accept electronic signatures in place of “wet ink” signatures. Section 304(2) of New York’s Electronic Signatures and Records Act (ESRA) provides: “unless specifically provided otherwise by law, an electronic signature may be used by a person in lieu of a signature affixed by hand. The use of an electronic signature shall have the same validity and effect as the use of a signature affixed by hand.” Moreover, the statutory definition of what constitutes an “electronic signature” is extremely broad under the ESRA, and includes any “electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with an electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record” (State Technology Law § 302[a]). We find that if an attorney hits “send” with the intent of relaying a settlement offer or acceptance, and their email account is identified in some way as their own, then it is unnecessary for them to type their own signature. Matter of Philadelphia Ins. Indem. Co. v Kendall, 2021 NY Slip Op 04284, First Dept 7-8-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT INTEND TO ABANDON THE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate an adequate excuse for failure to take steps to enter a default judgment in this foreclosure action within one year of the default:

The plaintiff’s … argument … [is] that, by moving for summary judgment and leave to enter a default judgment … , the plaintiff had “manifest[ed] its intent not to abandon this case.” However, while “[i]t is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … , and a plaintiff is not even required to specifically seek a default judgment within a year, but may take “the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving . . . for an order of reference pursuant to RPAPL 1321” … that preliminary step still must be taken “within one year of [a defendant’s] default” … . Here, since the plaintiff moved for summary judgment and an order of reference almost two years after the default, when the statutory time within which to enter a default had long since expired, it was too late for the plaintiff to “manifest an intent not to abandon the case” … so as to avoid dismissal of the complaint … . US Bank N..A.. v Davis, 2021 NY Slip Op 04251, Second Dept 7-7-21

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD-VICTIMS-ACT SEXUAL-ABUSE (NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISION) ACTION AGAINST THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ALBANY, PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY REQUEST FOR THE FILES OF SEVERAL NONPARTY PRIESTS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE GROUND THE FILES MAY REVEAL A “HABIT” OR “CUSTOM” REGARDING HOW THE DIOCESE HANDLED SUSPECTED CHILD-SEXUAL-ABUSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiffs’ discovery request for the files of several nonparty priests in this Child-Victims-Act sexual-abuse (negligent-supervision) action against defendant Catholic Diocese of Albany was properly granted. The discovery was relevant to whether the diocese followed a “habit” or “custom” in dealing with priests suspected of sexually abusing children:

Although the Diocese raises several arguments concerning the appropriateness of habit evidence in this context — namely, that it is prejudicial and that the circumstances surrounding allegations of abuse vary and do not yield habitual responses from the Diocese — these arguments conflate plaintiffs’ requirement on their motion to compel with plaintiffs’ future requirements to introduce the files into evidence. For now, on their motion to compel discovery, plaintiffs are merely required to show that their discovery request is reasonably calculated to yield material and necessary information … . Whether plaintiffs can actually demonstrate “a sufficient number of instances” of the Diocese’s repetitive conduct in order to introduce the subject files into evidence as habit evidence is plaintiffs’ future burden … . Melfe v Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 04179, Third Dept 7-1-21

 

NEW YORK DOES NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A MICHIGAN MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAV’S) PURCHASED BY SUNY STONY BROOK FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL SUPPLIES IN MADAGASCAR; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined New York did not have long-arm jurisdiction of the Michigan manufacturer of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV”s) purchased by SUNY Stony Brook for use in Madagascar (delivering medical supplies to remote locations). Stony Brook returned the UAV’s as defective but defendant did not replace them or issue a refund:

… [D]efendant did not “purposefully avail[] itself of ‘the privilege of conducting activities within [New York],’ by . . . transacting business in New York,” thus invoking the benefits and protections of New York’s laws … . The various communications between the parties were twofold: first, to discuss the ongoing issues with the UAVs that SUNY Stony Brook purchased and, second, to create a relationship and to submit grants for projects that would take place entirely and solely outside of New York. Regardless of the quantity of defendant’s communications with SUNY Stony Brook, these communications did not result in more sales in New York or seek to advance defendant’s business contacts within New York … . Rather, the business transacted — specifically the sale of the UAVs to SUNY Stony Brook for use in Madagascar — was a one-time occurrence that resulted after the professor commenced employment with SUNY Stony Brook in 2015 and then contacted the CEO … . The visit by the CEO to New York in 2017 was for the purpose of discussing issues regarding the completed purchase of the UAVs, rather than seeking additional business from SUNY Stony Brook or other entities in New York … . The UAVs were shipped to Madagascar and subsequently returned to defendant in Michigan. The grant that SUNY Stony Brook and defendant applied for was not intended to benefit New York, but rather other countries. Given these facts, we find that defendant could not reasonably have expected to defend this action in New York and, thus, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. State of New York v Vayu, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04068, Third Dept 6-24-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF SOUGHT DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND COULD NOT COMPEL PARTITION IF THE PARTNERSHIP EXISTS, PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PARTITION IN THE ALTERNATIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determine plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the complaint to allege a cause of action for partition in this partnership dispute. Although plaintiff sought dissolution of the partnership, and could not compel partition if the partnership exists, partition would be available if the existence of the partnership is not proven:

“Absent prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay in making the motion, leave to amend should be granted unless the proposed amendment is patently without merit or palpably improper” … . Here, the plaintiff has alleged the existence of a general partnership and has sought, inter alia, to dissolve it, while the defendant has consistently denied the existence of such partnership. If the plaintiff prevails in establishing the existence of the partnership, then he cannot compel partition of the partnership property … . However, since the existence of the partnership is disputed by the defendant, we see no reason why the plaintiff should not be permitted to plead, in the alternative (see CPLR 3014, 3017[a]), a cause of action to compel partition of the jointly held properties in the event no partnership is found to exist … . Ratto v Oliva, 2021 NY Slip Op 03860, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

, , , , ,

BECAUSE THE STATE, NOT THE TOWN, OWNS THE LAND BENEATH THE LAKE, THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO BRING CRIMINAL CHARGES BASED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS; THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND AND PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION; BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS TERMINATED IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the underlying criminal matter brought against the plaintiffs (the Melchers) by the town had been terminated in favor of the plaintiffs. Therefore the plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution action against the town should not have been dismissed. The town brought criminal charges based upon plaintiffs’ construction of docks in a marina. Pursuant to the Navigation Law, the state owns the land beneath the lake and the town, therefore, did not have jurisdiction to bring the criminal charges. The criminal charges had been dismissed on that ground:

In order to maintain a civil action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must show “(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding, and (4) actual malice” … . A criminal proceeding terminates favorably to the accused where the disposition is final, “such that the proceeding cannot be brought again” … , and the disposition is not “inconsistent with a plaintiff’s innocence” … . Whether a disposition was inconsistent with innocence is a case-specific determination that considers the circumstances of the particular case … .

Here, the 2008 criminal proceeding was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CPL 170.30(1)(f) because the Town lacked legal authority to regulate the activity upon which the criminal charges were based. In the dismissal order, the Supreme Court found that “jurisdiction over the [Melchners] ha[d] never been properly obtained and accordingly the [Melchners] [could] not be prosecuted for the offenses alleged.” Under the circumstances, the disposition was not inconsistent with the Melchners’ innocence … . Melchner v Town of Carmel, 2021 NY Slip Op 03830, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

, ,

CONVEYANCES OF REAL PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS FRAUDULENT PURSUANT TO THE DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW; RELATED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BASED UPON UNSUPPORTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined conveyances of property should have been set aside as fraudulent and the related affirmative defenses based upon unsupported conclusions of law should have been dismissed:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted … a copy of the deed and transfer documents regarding the properties at issue, which demonstrated that conveyances of the properties were made after the underlying action was commenced and without fair consideration. The plaintiff also submitted evidence that a judgment was docketed against [defendants] and that they failed to satisfy the judgment. With respect to the element of fair consideration, the deed and transfer documents reflect that no money or a nominal fee of ten dollars was paid for the defendants’ properties. Therefore, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the first cause of action to the extent that it seeks to set aside the conveyances of the properties pursuant to former section 273-a of the Debtor and Creditor Law … . …

The Supreme Court … should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(b) to dismiss the affirmative defenses insofar as the affirmative defenses pertain to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 273-a. CPLR 3211(b) authorizes a plaintiff to move to dismiss a defendant’s affirmative defense on the ground that it is without merit … [T]he affirmative defenses … proffered no supporting facts and merely pleaded conclusions of law. Diaz v 297 Schaefer St. Realty Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 03825, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

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