You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

CPLR 7515, ENACTED IN 2018, DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PROHIBIT MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined CPLR 7515, enacted in 2018, should not be applied retroactively to prohibit arbitration of a sexual harassment claim:

The provisions of CPLR 7515 relied on by plaintiff are not retroactively applicable to arbitration agreements, like the one at issue, that were entered into preceding the enactment of the law in 2018, so that plaintiff’s argument that this law prohibits arbitration of her claims is unavailing … . Newton v LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 01558, First Dept 3-18-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT HAVE A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this foreclosure action should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216, even though plaintiff’s excuse for failure to comply with the 90-day demand to file a note of issue was not justifiable:

Because there was no compliance with the 90-day demand, the party seeking to avoid dismissal had to demonstrate a “justifiable excuse for the delay and a good and meritorious cause of action” … . The opposition to defendant’s motion advanced only a conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure by plaintiff’s prior counsel as the justifiable excuse. Although the failure to detail and substantiate a claim of law office failure would justify dismissal of the complaint … , even when presented with an unjustifiable excuse, a court still retains some residual discretion to refuse dismissal of a complaint as a penalty under CPLR 3216 … .

… [S]ome of the delay in this case was not attributable to plaintiff. Taking into account that CPLR 3216 is “extremely forgiving of litigation delay” … , as well as the public policy of resolving disputes on the merits … , defendant’s motion, under the particular circumstances of this case, should have been denied to the extent that it sought dismissal of the complaint, and plaintiff’s cross motion should have been granted to the extent that it sought an extension of time to file the note of issue … . Chase Home Fin., LLC v Shoumatoff, 2021 NY Slip Op 01537, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AFTER DISCOVERY WAS CLOSED TO RAISE A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY STEMMING FROM FACTS NOT PREVIOUSLY ALLEGED; DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE THE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE DOOR WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CLOSED ON HER HAND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the bill of particulars after discovery was complete should not have been granted and defendant out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the door of a retail store closed on her hand as she was pushing a cart with merchandise through the doorway. She alleged the door was not properly maintained. After discovery she sought to amend her bill of particulars to allege there was a crack in the floor which caused the cart to get stuck as she was attempting to pass through the doorway:

“While leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily to be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise” … , “once discovery has been completed and the case has been certified as ready for trial, [a] party will not be permitted to amend the bill of particulars except upon a showing of special and extraordinary circumstances” … . In such a case, leave may properly be granted “where the plaintiff makes a showing of merit, and the amendment involves no new factual allegations, raises no new theories of liability, and causes no prejudice to the defendant” … . However “where a motion for leave to amend a bill of particulars alleging new theories of liability not raised in the complaint or the original bill is made on the eve of trial, leave of court is required, and judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly, and should be discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious” … . “In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the party seeking the amendment was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated, whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered, and whether prejudice resulted therefrom” … .

… [T]he proposed amendment to the bill of particulars raised an entirely new theory of liability well after discovery had been completed, and was advanced only in response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for her delay in seeking the amendment … , and the proposed amendment was prejudicial to the defendant … . * * *

… [T]he defendant [out-of-possession landlord] demonstrated its … entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by submitting, inter alia, the lease, which established that the tenant enjoyed complete and exclusive possession of the demised premises at the time of the plaintiff’s injury and that the defendant was not responsible for maintenance of the door. King v Marwest, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 08225, Second Dept 3-17-20

 

,

WHERE THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN AN ORDER OR A JUDGMENT AND THE DECISION UPON WHICH IT IS BASED, THE DECISION CONTROLS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that where a judgment or order is inconsistent with the decision upon which it is based, the decision controls:

“A written order [or judgment] must conform strictly to the court’s decision and in the event of an inconsistency between a judgment and a decision or order upon which it is based, the decision or order controls” … . “Such an inconsistency may be corrected either by way of a motion for resettlement or on appeal” … .

The motion court’s decision, amended to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his first cause of action for breach of the … modified agreement, also found that plaintiff was entitled to a money judgment in his favor for past due amounts owed. Because there is a conflict between the relief the motion court found plaintiff was entitled to in its decision, and the relief granted to plaintiff in the judgment, which made no provision for a money judgment as to plaintiff’s first cause of action, the court’s decision controls. Schwartzbard v Cogan, 2021 NY Slip Op 01523, First Dept 3-16-21

 

,

THE DEFAULT LETTER, WHICH INDICATED THE MORTGAGE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE IF THE DEFAULT WERE NOT CURED, DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage debt was not accelerated by a letter indicating the debt would be accelerated on a specific future date if the arears were not paid:

… [T]he issue is whether the May 2008 default letter was an acceleration event that triggered the statute of limitations. We hold that is was not. Thus, the second action, commenced in October 2014, was timely. To that end, the May 2008 letter provided that, if the default was not cured “on or before June 10, 2008, the mortgage payments will be accelerated with the full amount remaining accelerated and becoming due and payable in full, and foreclosure proceedings will be initiated at that time.” Since this letter was “‘merely an expression of future intent that fell short of an actual acceleration,’ which could ‘be changed in the interim'” … , it did not accelerate the debt … . “[T]he letter did not seek immediate payment of the entire, outstanding loan, but referred to acceleration only as a future event, indicating the debt was not accelerated at the time the letter was written” … . Further, the May 2008 letter specifically discussed other non-acceleration options for defendant, including a repayment plan or loan modification, which plaintiff, as the holder of the note, should be able to do “without running the risk of being deemed to have taken the drastic step of accelerating the loan” … . Thus, the statute of limitations was not triggered until the debt was accelerated by the commencement of the first action in February 2009 … , rendering the commencement of the second action, in October 2014, timely as it was within the six-year statute of limitations …  . GMAT Legal Tit. Trust 2014-1, Us Bank Natl. Assn. v Wood, 2021 NY Slip Op 01455, Third Dept 3-11-21

 

,

THE MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for an order of attachment should not have been granted:

“In order to be granted an order of attachment under CPLR 6201(3), a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has concealed or is about to conceal property in one or more of several enumerated ways, and has acted or will act with the intent to defraud creditors, or to frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in favor of the plaintiff” … . “Affidavits containing allegations raising a mere suspicion of an intent to defraud are insufficient. It must appear that such fraudulent intent really existed in the defendant’s mind” … . The “mere removal, assignment or other disposition of property is not grounds for attachment” … . Cyngiel v Krigsman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01391, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENT OF A TEMPORARY RECEIVER IN THIS PARTITION AND SALE ACTION WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the evidence did not support the appointment of a temporary receiver of a residential building and cooperative apartment that were the subjects of a partition and sale action:

CPLR 6401(a) permits the court, upon a motion by a person with an “apparent interest” in property, to appoint a temporary receiver of that property where “there is danger” that it will be “materially injured or destroyed.” However, the appointment of a temporary receiver “is an extreme remedy resulting in the taking and withholding of possession of property from a party without an adjudication on the merits” … .Therefore, a motion seeking such an appointment should be granted only where the moving party has made a “clear and convincing” evidentiary showing of “irreparable loss or waste to the subject property and that a temporary receiver is needed to protect their interests” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing. In particular, the plaintiff’s speculative and conclusory allegations that the defendants failed to repair and maintain the subject properties and commingled income derived from the subject properties with their personal income were insufficient to demonstrate that there was a danger of irreparable loss or material injury to the subject properties warranting the appointment of a temporary receiver … . Similarly, without more, the defendants’ failure to maintain adequate records does not demonstrate that the plaintiff’s interest in the subject properties is in imminent danger of irreparable loss or waste … . Cyngiel v Krigsman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01390, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

THE REFEREE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OF REFERENCE; SUPREME COURT’S RULINGS BASED UPON THE REFEREE’S ORDER WERE THEREFORE INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee did not comply with the order of reference and the referee’s order exceeded the scope of authority given by the order of reference. Therefore the grant of summary judgment, which was based on the referee’s order, was reversed:

A referee derives his or her authority from an order of reference by the court … , and the scope of the authority is defined by the order of reference (see CPLR 4311 … ). A referee who attempts to determine matters not referred to him or her by the order of reference acts beyond and in excess of his or her jurisdiction … .

Here, the order of reference directed the Referee to hear and determine the issue of the preliminary injunction. The Referee’s order, however, did not render a determination on the issue of the preliminary injunction. Brighton Leasing Corp. v Brighton Realty Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 01384 Second Dept 3-10-21

 

,

THE BANK’S FAILURE TO REJECT THE LATE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS WAIVED THE LATE SERVICE AND DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank waived its objection to a late answer by not timely rejecting it within 15 days. Therefore the default was also waived:

The defendant failed to timely appear or answer the complaint. … On April 30, 2018, the defendant served an answer with counterclaims. Seventeen days later, on May 17, 2018, the plaintiff served a notice of rejection in which it rejected the answer as untimely. …

Pursuant to CPLR 2101(f), “[t]he party on whom a paper is served shall be deemed to have waived objection to any defect in form unless, within fifteen days after the receipt thereof, the party on whom the paper is served returns the paper to the party serving it with a statement of particular objections” … . Here, the plaintiff’s undisputed failure to reject the defendant’s answer within the fifteen-day statutory time frame constituted a waiver of the late service and the default … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Lopez, 2021 NY Slip Op 01440, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

, , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FIRST DETERMINED WHETHER ANY DISTRIBUTEES OF THE DECEASED MORTGAGORS WERE NECESSARY PARTIES [RPAPL 1311 (1)] AND, IF SO, SUMMON THEM PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 [b]; THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether any distributees of the deceased mortgagors were necessary parties in this foreclosure action. The motion to dismiss for failure to join necessary parties should not have been granted. The court should have determined whether joinder of any parties was required and then summon them pursuant to CPLR 1001 [b]:

Pursuant to RPAPL 1311(1), “necessary defendants” in a mortgage foreclosure action include, among others, “[e]very person having an estate or interest in possession, or otherwise, in the property as tenant in fee, for life, by the curtesy, or for years, and every person entitled to the reversion, remainder, or inheritance of the real property, or of any interest therein or undivided share thereof, after the determination of a particular estate therein.”

“In certain circumstances, the estate of the mortgagor is not a necessary party to a mortgage foreclosure action” … . In particular, “where a mortgagor/property owner dies intestate and the mortgagee does not seek a deficiency judgment, generally a foreclosure action may be commenced directly against the distributees,” in whom title to the real property automatically vests … .

Here, the plaintiff did not seek a deficiency judgment. However, questions of fact existed, which should have been resolved by the Supreme Court, as to whether any distributees of the deceased mortgagors, other than the defendants herein, retained an interest in the property such that they were necessary parties to the foreclosure action. Further, to the extent that there were such necessary parties to the action, dismissal of the complaint was not the proper remedy; rather, the property remedy in such instance is to direct the joinder of those parties (see CPLR 1001[b] … . NRZ Pass-Through Trust IV v Tarantola, 2021 NY Slip Op 01423, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

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