, , ,

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

 

, ,

COURTS HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO RENEW EVEN IF BASED ON INFORMATION KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION; HERE THE MOTION TO RENEW ADDRESSED AN OMISSION IN THE ORGINGAL MOTION PAPERS WHICH THE JUDGE HAD RAISED SUA SPONTE AS THE GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to renew in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The judge denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised by the parties—plaintiff’s failure to submit a power of attorney authorizing a party to act as a loan servicer. The motion to renew addressed that omission, which had been raised by the judge sua sponte:

“Generally, ‘a motion for leave to renew is intended to bring to the court’s attention new or additional facts which were in existence at the time the original motion was made, but were unknown to the movant'” … . “However, the requirement that a motion for leave to renew be based upon new or additional facts unknown to the movant at the time of the original motion is a flexible one and the court, in its discretion, may also grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts which were known to the movant at the time the original motion was made”… .

Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew based upon the submission of the limited power of attorney, since the plaintiff’s initial failure to submit the power of attorney was raised sua sponte by the court … . NP162, LLC v Harding, 2021 NY Slip Op 04612, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY DID NOT FILE AN AFFIRMATION AS REQUIRED BY AN ADMINSTRATIVE ORDER; THE MAJORITY DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT PERFECT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE COULD AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THIS APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined defendant in this foreclosure action could not raise the plaintiff’s failure to comply with an Administrative Order (AO) because it could have been raised on a prior appeal which was not perfected. The dissent argued the court could and should address the “AO” issue on this appeal:

From the dissent:

… [A] plaintiff’s attorney is required to affirm after conferring with a representative of the plaintiff and upon the attorney’s “own inspection and other reasonable inquiry” that the pleadings and submissions “contain no false statements of fact or law.”  …

… [P]laintiff’s attorney was required to file the affidavit conforming with AO/431/11 and AO/208/13, an issue that was directly raised in defendant’s motion to vacate and could have been addressed by this Court had defendant perfected his appeal from the court’s April 2018 order. In an instance such as this, this Court “has the authority to entertain a second appeal in the exercise of [our] discretion, even where a prior appeal on the same issue has been dismissed for failure to prosecute” … . Given that the filing of an attorney affirmation is mandatory and, at the latest, must be filed five business days before a scheduled auction … , I believe we should exercise our discretion and address the issue of noncompliance (id.). To assure the integrity of the foreclosure process, which is the entire objective of the Administrative Orders, we should modify the order by requiring a continued stay of any auction sale pending the submission of a compliant attorney affirmation. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sage, 2021 NY Slip Op 04583, Third Dept 7-29-21

 

, , , ,

SEPARATE TRIALS WERE HELD ON THE TORT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING CAUSED BY RENOVATION OF DEFENDANT’S NEIGHBORING BUILDING; THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN EACH ACTION WERE BASED UPON THE SAME EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF REPAIR AND ALTERNATE LIVING EXPENSES BUT THE AMOUNTS OF THE AWARDS DIFFERED; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ENTERED THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLUS INTEREST AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, AS THE APPEALABLE FINAL JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an extensive opinion by Justice Moulton, addressed several unusual issues stemming from the allegation the renovation of defendant’s neighboring property damaged plaintiffs’ property. Two separate trials were held: a jury trial on tort (negligence) claims; and a nonjury trial on breach of contract claims (i.e., the contract allowing defendants access to plaintiffs’ property to facilitate the renovation). In the nonjury breach of contract action plaintiffs were awarded $6,255,007 for repair costs and $1,152,000 for alternate living expenses. In the jury trial (tort action) plaintiffs were awarded $5,000,000 for repair and $500,000 for alternate living expenses. The issues decided in plaintiff’s appeal are: the breach of contract judgment is appealable as a final judgment; Supreme Court properly precluded expert testimony on the loss of market value in plaintiffs’ home. The issues decided in defendant’s cross appeals are: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the breach of contract judgment and adopt the jury’s tort judgment; plaintiffs were entitled to conditional contractual indemnification from defendant. The final judgment which was entered used the breach of contract (nonjury trial) damages, plus interest and attorney’s fees totaling over $12 million. With respect to whether the judgment was appealable as a final judgment, the court wrote:

Our conclusion that the contract judgment is a final judgment starts with the definition of a judgment. “A judgment is the determination of the rights of the parties in an action or special proceeding and may be either interlocutory or final” (CPLR 5011; see also CPLR 105 [k] [“The word ‘judgment’ means a final or interlocutory judgment”]). “[A] fair working definition of the concept can be stated as follows: a ‘final’ order or judgment is one that disposes of all of the causes of action between the parties in the action or proceeding and leaves nothing for further judicial action apart from mere ministerial matters”  … . Shah v 20 E. 64th St., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04587, First Dept 7-29-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN MAKING MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of defendants’ default in mortgage payments was based upon business records which were not produced:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the defendants’ default in payment by submitting the affidavit of Haley Pope, the Foreclosure Manager for its loan servicer. Pope did not specifically state that she had personal knowledge of the defendants’ default in payment. To the extent Pope relied on her review of business records, she did not identify which records she relied on to assert a default in payment, or attach any business records to her affidavit to substantiate the alleged default in payment. Thus, the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden by relying on Pope’s conclusory assertion that the defendants defaulted in payment, which was not supported by a factual basis … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v McLaughlin, 2021 NY Slip Op 04576, Second Dept 7-28-21