You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

IN THIS CLASS-ACTION-CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING ALLEGING FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF PAY RATE AND PAY DAY AS REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW SECTION 195(1), THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED CERTIFICATION FOR THE CLAIM FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE REQUEST FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS OF CLASS MEMBERS WHOSE CLASS-ACTION NOTICE WAS RETURNED AS UNDELIVERABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this class-action-certification proceeding concerning wage notice violations, noted that CPLR 901(b) prohibits class actions seeking liquidated damages and the request for social security numbers for class members whose notice was returned as undeliverable should not have been granted:

… [T]he court should not have granted class certification for the wage notice claims, which are based on the alleged failure to provide a notice of pay rate and pay day as required by Labor Law § 195(1), and seek liquidated damages, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under Labor Law § 198(1-b). Where, as here, defendant pleaded a Labor Law § 198 statutory affirmative defense to the wage notice claim, the court should have declined to grant certification by applying the CPLR 901(b) prohibition against class actions seeking liquidated damages … .

To the extent the court ordered defendants to provide the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of all class members, as well as social security numbers for all class members whose notice is returned as undeliverable without a forwarding address, the order is modified to deny the request for social security numbers. The court otherwise properly granted the request for phone numbers and e-mail addresses, which is a reasonable request to expedite class notification. Idahosa v MFM Contr. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 03762, First Sept 6-24-25

Practice Point: Where class-action notices are returned as undeliverable, the request for phone numbers and e-mail addresses is properly granted to expedite class notification, but the request for social security numbers should not be granted.

 

,

“BEACH 12,” A NONPARTY WHICH BECAME TITLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AFTER PLAINTIFF FILED THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY, WAS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS OF RIGHT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined an nonparty (Beach 12) was entitled to intervene in the foreclosure action as of right:

“Upon a timely motion, a person is permitted to intervene as of right when the representation of that person’s interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment, or when the action involves the disposition of property and that person may be affected adversely by the judgment” (… CPLR 1012[a][2], [3]). “In addition, CPLR 1013 provides that a court has discretion to permit a person to intervene, inter alia, when the person’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” … . “Whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012(a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013, is of little practical significance, since intervention should be permitted where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings” … . “Intervention may occur at any time, provided that it does not unduly delay the action or prejudice existing parties” … .

… Beach 12 was entitled to intervene [because] this “action involve[s] the disposition of title to real property” and … Beach 12, which became the title owner of the premises after the plaintiff’s filing of a notice of pendency, “would be bound and adversely affected by a judgment of foreclosure and sale” … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Reed, 2025 NY Slip Op 03695, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision the criteria for a nonparty’s intervention in a foreclosure action.

 

, , , , ,

THE PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CITY FIREFIGHTER, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-firefighter did not demonstrate the NYC Fire Department (FDNY) improperly denied petitioner’s request for a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate:

Pursuant to the NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law], it is “an unlawful discriminatory practice” for an employer “to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation” for, among other possibilities, “religious needs” (Administrative Code § 8-107[28][a][1]). Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the appellants’ process for resolving requests for a reasonable accommodation from the vaccine mandate did not meet the requirements of the NYCHRL regarding cooperative dialogue … . The appellants provided information on the process for reviewing accommodation requests related to the vaccine mandate and informed employees on how to appeal request denials. The record demonstrates that the petitioner availed himself of this process. The record also shows that there were multiple communications between the petitioner, the FDNY, and the [City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel] regarding the petitioner’s accommodation request. The petitioner failed to establish that, under the unique circumstances present at the time of the vaccine mandate, the NYCHRL required a more robust or individualized dialogue.

The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the determination to deny him a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate was arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 03728, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here the petitioner-firefighter had won in Supreme Court and was reinstated with back pay. But the Second Department reversed finding petitioner was not entitled to a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate.

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROCEEDING UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 52 TO ENFORCE A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE STATE INSURANCE FUND TO THE EXTENT THE STATE IS A GARNISHEE (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction over this CPLR article 52 action to enforce a money judgment against New York State Insurance Fund. Ordinarily an action for money damages against a state agency is litigated in the Court of Claims:

In this proceeding, the State Insurance Fund is postured not as a judgment debtor but as a garnishee. As such, under CPLR 5207, all procedures for the enforcement of money judgments against other judgment debtors are applicable to it, as a garnishee, “except where otherwise prescribed by law” and except that an order “shall only provide for the payment of moneys not claimed by the [S]tate” and that no judgment may be entered against the State in such a procedure.

The State Insurance Fund has not shown that this proceeding is otherwise prescribed by law. To the contrary, CPLR 5221(a)(4) provides that the Supreme Court or a County Court has authority to hear enforcement proceedings “authorized by this article,” meaning the entirety of CPLR article 52, which, of course, includes CPLR 5207 garnishment proceedings against the State. … The petition seeks entry of an order, not a judgment. Thus, contrary to the State Insurance Fund’s contention, we hold that the Supreme Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52 to enforce a money judgment as against the State Insurance Fund to the extent that the State’s role in this instance is that of a garnishee. Matter of Doran Constr. Corp. v New York State Ins. Fund, 2025 NY Slip Op 03716, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here, under very complicated facts, Supreme Court was deemed to have subject matter jurisdiction over an action to enforce a money judgment against a state agency where the state’s role is that of a garnishee.

 

,

THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT (HSTPA), BY ITS TERMS, APPLIES TO THIS HOLDOVER ACTION WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE HSTPA WAS ENACTED BUT HAS NOT PROCEEDED TO JUDGMENT; THEREFORE THE ACT NEED NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO PRECLUDE THE HOLDOVER ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ford, reversing the Appellate Term, determined the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), which was enacted after the landlord brought the holdover proceedings but before judgment, applied to preclude the holdover action. The First Department did not need to determine whether the HSTPA applied retroactively. Under the terms of the statute, the Act applies to actions which were pending when it was enacted:

As of the date of the enactment of HSTPA, the petitioner had not yet obtained judgments of possession of the respondents’ respective apartments. The application of the subject provision of HSTPA, under these circumstances, does not expand the scope of the petitioner’s liability based on prior conduct, nor impair other rights the petitioner possessed in the past …  When HSTPA was enacted, the petitioner had no vested right to recover any units in the building for personal use … . Thus, application of HSTPA here has no potentially problematic retroactive effect … .

HSTPA unequivocally states that the subject amendments to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 applied to matters pending as of the date of HSTPA’s enactment … . As there is no potentially problematic retroactive effect to the amended provision in this matter, and it is undisputed that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought pursuant to the amended provision, the respondents were entitled to dismissal of the respective petitions pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . Matter of Karpen v Andrade, 2025 NY Slip Op 03719, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Where there has not been a judgment in a holdover action which was pending whin the HSTPA was enacted, there is no need to determine whether the Act should be applied retroactively. The Act, by its terms, applied to the pending action.

 

,

HERE THE FIRST “NAIL AND MAIL” AFFIDAVIT BY THE PROCESS SERVER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIRED MAILING; A SECOND AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED WHICH DESCRIBED THE MAILING; THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT DID NOT CURE THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE A HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing was required on whether defendant was properly served by “nail and mail.” The first affidavit from the process server did not mention the required mailing. A second affidavit which described the mailing was subsequently submitted. The second affidavit did not cure the flaw in the original affidavit:

… Supreme Court erred in determining the defendant’s cross-motion, inter alia, to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction without first conducting a hearing to determine the validity of service of process. The original affidavit of service sworn to on July 26, 2018, failed to aver that the process server mailed the summons and complaint as required by CPLR 308(4). The new affidavit of service sworn to on November 23, 2021, submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant’s cross-motion, could not be used to cure the apparent defect in the original affidavit of service … . Further, the defendant raised an issue of fact as to whether the summons and complaint were affixed to the door of the defendant’s dwelling place or usual place of abode … . Miller v Fuentes, 2025 NY Slip Op 03564, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: If the original affidavit by the process server does not describe the mailing requirement for “nail and mail” service, that flaw is not cured by submitting a second affidavit which describes the mailing. The flaw in the original affidavit mandates a hearing on the validity of the service of process.

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN THROWN FROM A RENTED MOPED; THE RENTAL AGREEMENT INCLUDED AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; HOWEVER, THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; NEGLIGENCE AND WRONGFUL-DEATH CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DISTINCT AND ADDRESS DIFFERENT INJURIES; THE WINNING ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCormack, determined the plaintiffs in this wrongful death action, who are the parents of plaintiffs’ decedent and the administrators of decedent’s estate, are not bound by the decedent’s agreement to arbitrate. The decedent rented an electric moped from defendant Ravel by downloading an app with an arbitration clause. Decedent was killed when he was thrown from the moped and struck by a car. All agreed that the negligence causes of action were subject to the arbitration clause. Plaintiffs successfully argued the wrongful death action is distinct from the negligence actions and is not subject to the arbitration clause. The winning argument was first raised on appeal. The court heard the appeal because it “present[ed] a pure question of law that appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture” …:

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiffs, individually, did not enter into an agreement with Revel to arbitrate. However, the plaintiffs are the administrators of the decedent’s estate, and the causes of action arise from the same incident that caused the decedent’s death. The issue, therefore, turns on the nature of wrongful death causes of action and whether they are derivative of negligence causes of action or independent of negligence causes of action. * * *

The law of this State is clear that a wrongful death cause of action is a separate and distinct cause of action to redress the injuries suffered by a decedent’s distributees as a result of the decedent’s death. “‘A cause of action to recover damages for wrongful death is a property right belonging solely to the distributees of the decedent and vests in them at the decedent’s death'” … . This is true even where no cause of action alleging negligence exists. * * * … [T]his Court [has] determined that a cause of action alleging wrongful death was not derivative of a negligence cause of action, but [is] an independent cause of action vested in the distributees. “… [T]he surviving personal injury action and the wrongful death cause of action … are different in many respects. The two causes of action exist in order to protect the rights of different classes of persons, and the measure of damages is entirely different” … . “Wrongful death actions are brought not to compensate the decedent or his [or her] estate for the pain and suffering attendant to the injury, but rather to recover, on behalf of decedent’s distributees, the pecuniary value of the decedent’s life” … . Further, the different causes of action accrue at different times. A negligence cause of action accrues at the time of the injury, while a wrongful death cause of action does not accrue until the decedent’s death, which can occur after the injury is sustained … . Marinos v Brahaj, 2025 NY Slip Op 03561, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Negligence and wrongful death causes of action are distinct and address different injuries. Here an arbitration clause in a moped rental contract executed to by plaintiffs’ decedent was deemed to apply to the negligence causes of action stemming from the moped accident, but not to the related wrongful death cause of action.​

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an example of when an issue raised for the first time on appeal will be considered by the appellate court.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS MED-MAL WRONGFUL-DEATH ACTION DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NINETY-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE, DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO RESPOND, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the ninety-day CPLR 3216 demand to file a note of issue required dismissal of the medical malpractice action. The law-office-failure excuse was vague and conclusory and plaintiff did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action:

“Where, as here, a plaintiff has been served with a 90-day demand . . . pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), the plaintiff must comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day demand period” … . Here, the plaintiff did neither.

“In opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216, a plaintiff may still avoid dismissal if he or she demonstrates ‘a justifiable excuse for the failure to timely abide by the 90-day demand, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action'” … . “‘Although the court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a justifiable excuse (see CPLR 2005), a claim of law office failure should be supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue'” … . Here, the vague and conclusory claim of law office failure set forth by the plaintiff’s attorney did not constitute a justifiable excuse … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit evidentiary proof from a medical expert demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Kresberg v Kerr, 2025 NY Slip Op 03559, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Here a vague and conclusory allegation of law-office-failure was not a reasonable excuse for failure to respond to the ninety-day demand to file a note of issue.

 

, ,

THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THEREFORE THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed because a proper foundation for the admissibility of the records relied upon by the referee was not provided by the accompanying affidavit:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . Here, in computing the amount due on the mortgage loan, the referee relied upon the affidavit of Frank Rosas, a vice president of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (hereinafter Nationstar), the servicer of the mortgage loan. Rosas stated in his affidavit that Nationstar’s records pertaining to the mortgage loan included records of PHH Mortgage, a prior servicer. However, Rosas did not state when Nationstar began servicing the loan, did not state that “[he] was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures” of PHH Mortgage … , and did not “establish that the records provided by [PHH Mortgage] were incorporated into [Nationstar’s] own records and routinely relied upon by [Nationstar] in its own business” … . Thus, Rosas’s affidavit failed to satisfy the admissibility requirements of CPLR 4518(a) … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Coxall, 2025 NY Slip Op 03557, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: An affiant’s failure to lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of business records in a foreclosure action results in reversal.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DINER’S SECURITY GUARD KNOCKED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND AND CHOKED HIM; WHETHER THE DINER DEFENDANTS ARE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE DEPENDED UPON WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARD WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE JURY WITH AN INTERROGATORY ON THE SCOPE-OF-EMPLOYMENT QUESTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and ordering a new trial, held the jury should have been instructed to determine whether the security guard (Vetell) who assaulted plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the assault. Apparently plaintiff left the defendant diner to get money at an ATM to pay the bill. When he retuned to the diner, the security guard knocked him to the ground and choked him:

… Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants’ counsel’s request to ask the jury to determine whether Vetell was acting within the scope of his employment when he attacked the plaintiff. The interrogatories that were given to the jury made it possible for the jury to find the appellants liable for Vetell’s acts based only on his being a special employee without determining that he was acting within the scope of his employment when he attacked the plaintiff. Since a determination that Vetell was acting within the scope of his employment is a necessary element to render the appellants vicariously liable for his acts, the court should have added the requested interrogatory to the verdict sheet … . Eaton v Fiotos, 2025 NY Slip Op 03553, Second Dept 6-10-25

Practice Point: Whether an employer is vicariously liable for the actions of an employee depends upon whether the employee’s conduct was within the scope of employment. Here the failure to so instruct the jury required a new trial.​

 

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