You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AND OTHER CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO DISMISSAL WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order dismissing the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216 should not have been granted:

The conditional order constituted a defective 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. The court was without authority to issue a 90-day notice since issue was not joined in the action (see CPLR 3216[b][1] … ). Moreover, the conditional order failed to state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply “will serve as a basis for a motion” by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute … . The purported dismissal was not properly effectuated since the court never directed the parties to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, and failed to issue a formal order of dismissal on notice to the parties as required by CPLR 3216 … . Moreover, the conditional order was erroneous since it directed the plaintiff to move for an order of reference, even though the plaintiff had already moved for an order of reference. Accordingly, we grant the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order and restore the action to the active calendar. U.S. Bank N.A. v Thompson, 2020 NY Slip Op 08098, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE TWO INDICTMENTS ALLEGED THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI FOR MEDICAID FRAUD, THE CHARGES INVOLVED DIFFERENT PARTIES AND TIME PERIODS; THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION SEEKING TO PRECLUDE PROSECUTION ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS DENIED OVER A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, denied the writ of prohibition seeking to preclude a second prosecution for Medicaid fraud on double jeopardy grounds. Although the alleged scheme to defraud was the same, the two indictments involved different parties and different time periods:

In essence, the wrongdoing charged in each indictment is the filing of fraudulent Medicaid reimbursement claims and related misconduct, such as payment of kickbacks. However, the indictments charge different specific criminal acts, which were perpetrated on different dates and over different time periods. Moreover, the indictments do not allege fraudulent billing of any of the same managed care organizations. While it appears that the different fraudulent acts charged in the two indictments had a similar modus operandi and were part of a common plan, this alone does not suffice to render them part of the same “criminal transaction” under CPL 40.10(2)(b) … . Matter of Dieffenbacher v Jackson, 2020 NY Slip Op 08015, First Dept 12-29-20

 

,

THE PROOF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof was not sufficient to support piercing the corporate veil and summary judgment should have been granted on that issue:

“Generally, a plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … .

“Since, by definition, a corporation acts through its officers and directors, to hold a shareholder/officer … personally liable, a plaintiff must do more than merely allege that the individual engaged in improper acts or acted in ‘bad faith’ while representing the corporation.” … Instead, “[t]he party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must establish that the owners [of the corporation], through their domination, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against that party such that a court in equity will intervene” … .

Here, … the complaint … does not sufficiently allege injury to plaintiff. …

[Plaintiff]  “failed to produce evidence that the individual defendants took steps to render the corporate defendant insolvent in order to avoid plaintiffs’ claim for damages or otherwise defraud plaintiffs” … . Sutton 58 Assocs. LLC v Pilevsky, 2020 NY Slip Op 08020, First Dept 12-29-20

 

,

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR WAS REASONABLE BECAUSE THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE COULD BE TRIGGERED BY A PARTY OVER WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, reversing Supreme Court, determined the counterclaims by defendant subcontractor, Nastasi, in this breach of a construction contract action, should not have been dismissed. The central issue was whether the one-year contractual statute of limitations was enforceable. Because the statute could be triggered by the failure of the owner to pay the plaintiff general contractor, Turner, a circumstance over which the defendant subcontractor, Nastasi, had no control, there was a question of fact whether the one-year limitations period was reasonable:

The relevant question when deciding whether a limitations period is enforceable is whether and when the damages were objectively ascertainable … . A contractual limitations period is unenforceable without a concrete determination of damages accrual … .

Here, the provisions setting a one-year limitation period for claims arising out of the contracts between Turner and Nastasi are reasonable on their face. However, the contracts also provide that payments by the owner are conditions precedent to any sums owed by Turner to Nastasi. As observed in D&S Restoration, it was neither fair nor reasonable to impose such a condition precedent, which was not within Nastasi’s control, but had the capability of nullifying its claim (D&S Restoration, 160 AD3d at 926).

… [T]he intent of the owner should not govern the interplay of the two provisions. Such a holding will unreasonably permit a party to choose to stay silent on the issue of owner payment unless it suited them, and unilaterally set the accrual date for the claim. Turner Constr. Co. v Nastasi & Assoc., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 08024, First Dept 12-29-20

 

, ,

CPLR 204(A) IN CONJUNCTION WITH RPAPL 1301(3) TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHILE THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING, FROM 2010 TO 2013, RENDERING THE SECOND FORECLOSURE ACTION IN 2017 TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, reversing Supreme Court, determined the instant foreclosure action was not time barred because CPLR 204(a) in conjunction with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1301(3) prohibited bringing the instant action while the first action was pending:

In September 2003, defendant, in exchange for a loan to purchase a residence, executed a note secured by a mortgage on that real property. The note and mortgage were later assigned to plaintiff. After defendant failed to make some payments, on May 5, 2010 plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action against defendant, which Supreme Court (Drago, J.) dismissed on October 30, 2013 for failure to prosecute. In April 2015, Supreme Court (Buchannan, J.) denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal. In 2017, plaintiff commenced a second foreclosure action. * * *

CPLR 204 (a) provides that, “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” * * *

The statute that plaintiff relies on, in conjunction with CPLR 204 (a), is RPAPL 1301 (3), which provides that, while an action for a mortgage debt “is pending or after final judgment for the plaintiff therein, no other action shall be commenced or maintained to recover any part of the mortgage debt, without leave of the court in which the former action was brought.” The purpose of RPAPL 1301 (3) is “to shield the mortgagor from the expense and annoyance of two independent actions at the same time with reference to the same debt … . … [P]laintiff established that the statute was tolled during the pendency of the first foreclosure action, from May 2010 to October 2013. Citimortgage, Inc. v Ramirez, 2020 NY Slip Op 07970, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECTLY NAME THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 305(C) AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend to complaint to reflect the correct name of the defendant should have been granted:

In September 2016, plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell in the bathroom of a McDonald’s restaurant located in the Town of Williamson, Wayne County. In August 2019, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant to recover for the injuries that he sustained. Defendant answered, asserting, among other affirmative defenses, a lack of personal jurisdiction and that she is not a proper party because she does not own, operate, maintain or control the business in which plaintiff was allegedly injured. Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds, contending that “Nancyone, Inc.,” a New York corporation for which defendant is a corporate officer, owned and operated the subject McDonald’s restaurant and that it had not been properly served with the summons and complaint prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. …

Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of his cross motion that sought leave to amend his complaint pursuant to CPLR 305 (c). We agree. As relevant here, “[i]f a defendant has been misnamed in the caption of the summons and complaint, but has nonetheless been properly served within the limitations period, amendment of the summons and complaint should be allowed in the absence of demonstrated prejudice to a substantial right” … . Kachadourian v Wilkes, 2020 NY Slip Op 07972, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

, ,

THE BANK PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not submit admissible evidence of standing to bring the foreclosure action:

While a witness may always testify as to matters within his or her personal knowledge through personal observation … , here, Klein [plaintiff’s counsel] did not provide any factual details concerning when Cohn & Roth [Klein’s lawfirm] came into physical possession of the consolidated note and allonges … . Modlin’s [an authorized signatory’s] affidavit was similarly deficient inasmuch as she failed to identify the documents reviewed or any basis for the conclusion that the consolidated note and allonges had been in the plaintiff’s possession and were sent to Cohn & Roth prior to the commencement of the action. Under these circumstances, the statements made by Klein and Modlin constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v Auxila, 2020 NY Slip Op 07945, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

,

IN THIS ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE AFFIDAVITS OF CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, INFORMATION SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in an action seeking to enforce affidavits of confession of judgment, determined the motion to quash information subpoenas should not have been granted:

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to quash the information subpoenas. CPLR 5223 compels disclosure of “all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment.” A judgment creditor is entitled to discovery from either the judgment debtor or a third party in order “to determine whether the judgment debtor[ ] concealed any assets or transferred any assets so as to defraud the judgment creditor or improperly prevented the collection of the underlying judgment” … . …

… [A] party moving to quash a subpoena has the initial burden of establishing either that the requested disclosure “is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious” … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the fact that they are seeking to rescind the judgment by confession in a separate action against the plaintiffs, without more, does not preclude enforcement of the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants … . Furthermore, the defendants failed to proffer any evidence that the requested disclosure is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious. Lisogor v Nature’s Delight, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 07879, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, , ,

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAIINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been allowed to amend the answer to assert the lack-of-standing defense and plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing with admissible evidence:

“In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, applications to amend or supplement a pleading are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” ( …see CPLR 3025[b]). The burden of demonstrating prejudice or surprise, or that a proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, falls upon the party opposing the motion … . “‘Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'”… . Here, BAC Home failed to show that any surprise or prejudice would result from the proposed amendments and did not demonstrate that the proposed amendments were palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … .

The defendant did not waive the defense of lack of standing by failing to interpose the defense in his original answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see RPAPL 1302-a).

Here, in order to establish its standing, BAC Home [plaintiff’s predecessor] submitted affidavits from two document execution representatives of Ditech [plaintiff], each of whom stated that review of Ditech’s business records relating to the subject mortgage loan had confirmed that BAC Home was in possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. However, neither affiant identified any particular document reviewed, nor did they attach to their respective affidavits any admissible document to show that BAC Home possessed the note prior to the commencement of this action. The affidavits also failed to show that either affiant possessed personal knowledge of whether BAC Home possessed the note prior to the commencement of the action. Under these circumstances, the affidavits constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked any probative value (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Ditech Fin., LLC v Khan, 2020 NY Slip Op 07865, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal should have been granted because the conditions in CPLR 3216 were not met by the order:

“CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with” … . As relevant here, an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him or her for unreasonably neglecting to proceed … . “While a conditional order of dismissal may have the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216” … , the conditional order of dismissal here “‘was defective in that it failed to state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice “will serve as a basis for a motion” by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute'” … . The Supreme Court should not have administratively dismissed the action without further notice to the parties and without benefit of further judicial review … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Henry, 2020 NY Slip Op 07863, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

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