You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

EVEN IF PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SATISFY THE GOOD CAUSE STANDARD FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to extend the time for service of the complaint in the interest of justice should have been granted. The Third Department noted that defendant had waived the statute of limitations defense by not asserting it in an answer or a motion to dismiss and Supreme Court should not have cancelled the mortgage because defendant did not request that relief:

… [D]efendant contends … that her default was properly vacated due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not raise any argument as to whether service was properly effectuated upon defendant or whether a traverse hearing should have been granted. … Plaintiff instead argues that it was entitled to an extension of time under CPLR 306-b to cure any service defects.

To that end, a plaintiff may be granted an extension of time to serve process upon a defendant “upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice” … . Even if we agreed with defendant that plaintiff failed to satisfy the good cause standard of CPLR 306-b, we find that plaintiff established its entitlement to an extension of time in the interest of justice. “The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties” … . The record discloses that, approximately one month after commencing this action, plaintiff made numerous attempts to serve defendant at the address provided on the mortgage documents. Plaintiff likewise cross-moved for an extension of time to cure any service defects approximately one month after defendant raised the issue of improper service. Furthermore, defendant does not argue, nor does the record indicate, that she would suffer any prejudice if an extension of time was granted. In view of the foregoing, and taking into account that plaintiff demonstrated the merits of its claim, plaintiff’s cross motion, to the extent that it sought an extension of time to serve process in the interest of justice, should have been granted … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Kaufman, 2020 NY Slip Op 06184, Third Dept 10-29-20

 

, ,

PETITIONER, THE OWNER OF A LEASED CAR DAMAGED IN AN ACCIDENT, SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT THE RESPONDENT REPAIR SHOP’S GARAGEKEEPER’S LIEN WAS NULL AND VOID ALLEGING IT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE REPAIR; ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF THE SALE TO PAY OFF THE LIEN DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE LIEN LAW, THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SURREPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the petition, brought by the owner of a leased vehicle damaged in an accident, seeking a declaration that the respondent repair shop’s garagekeeper’s lien was null and void because it did not authorize the repair, should not have been granted. Although the notice of the sale to pay off the lien did not comply with the Lien Law, evidence submitted by the petitioner in suureply should not have been considered. Therefore the petition should not have been granted on the merits and respondent repair shop should have been allowed to submit an answer:

Accepting that respondent attempted “with due diligence” to personally serve the notice upon petitioners within the county where the lien arose, however, the notice was not sent via “certified mail, return receipt requested, and by first-class mail” as required to accomplish service under Lien Law § 201 … . Those service requirements are meant “to insure that [owners] have an adequate opportunity to reclaim their vehicles” … and, inasmuch as a garagekeeper’s lien is a statutory creation in derogation of common law, the failure to comply with them renders service defective … . Accordingly, in view of respondent’s failure to serve the notice in the manner required by the Lien Law, the time in which to commence this proceeding challenging the lien never began to run … . …

Supreme Court did abuse its discretion, however, in rebuffing respondent’s request to serve an answer and instead granting the petition on the merits. There was nothing to show that respondent was not a registered repair shop during the relevant period, and respondent asked petitioners to review a vehicle lease agreement that it believed conferred actual authority upon [the lessee] to authorize repairs on [petitioner’s] behalf … .  Petitioners instead provided that agreement for the first time in their surreply papers, a belated attempt to introduce new factual information to which respondent could not respond and that should have been rejected … . Matter of Daimler Trust v R&W Auto Body, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06187, Third Dept 10-29-20

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether the continuous treatment applied such that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations:

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether [defendant’s] postoperative treatment of the patient, including rehabilitative therapy, wound care, and pain management, constituted a continuation of the course of treatment for the condition which originally gave rise to the alleged medical malpractice … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether the [the rehabilitation center’s] postoperative treatment of the patient, which included rehabilitative therapy, wound care, and pain management treatment through January 2015, constituted a continuation of the course of treatment for the condition which originally gave rise to the alleged medical malpractice … . Wright v Southampton Hosp., 2020 NY Slip Op 06170, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

THE 90-DAY NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE; THEREFORE THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action should not have dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 because the 90-day notice was defective:

On November 20, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a certification order which, inter alia, certified the matter for trial and directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue within 90 days. The order provided that “[i]f plaintiff does not file a note of issue within 90 days this action is deemed dismissed without further order of the Court. (CPLR 3216).” The plaintiff failed to file a note of issue, and the action was ministerially dismissed, without further notice to the parties. …

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'” … . …

The certification order, which purported to serve as a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, was defective as it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the demand would serve as a basis for the Supreme Court, on its own motion, to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute … . Moreover, it is evident from the record that the action was ministerially dismissed without a motion or notice to the parties, and there was no order of the court dismissing the action … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Arias, 2020 NY Slip Op 06108, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate it met the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 and the bank did not demonstrate it had standing the bring the action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of mailing or proof of first-class mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly mailed notice to the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, the plaintiff relied on an affidavit of Sherry Benight, who was employed as a document control officer for Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (hereinafter SPS), which began servicing the subject loan on the plaintiff’s behalf on July 15, 2015, as well as copies of the purported notices, dated July 22, 2013. Although one of the notices contained a first-class mail 10-digit barcode, the plaintiff submitted no evidence that the letter was actually sent by first-class mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. In her affidavit, Benight stated that she could confirm that the notice was sent to the defendant on July 22, 2013. However, Benight did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing. Further, since she did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Bank of America, N.A., the entity that purportedly sent the notices, she did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . To the extent that Benight relied upon a screenshot of a TrackRight Transaction Report, she failed to establish how or when the report was created, that it was made in the regular course of business, or that it was created soon after the notices were purportedly mailed to the defendant … . …

The plaintiff also attempted to establish standing through the submission of Benight’s affidavit, but this also was insufficient. Benight asserted that the original note was delivered to the plaintiff on September 7, 2004, and that the plaintiff had since remained in possession of the note. Benight, however, did not have personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s receipt of the note, did not attest that she had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s business practices and procedures, and also did not submit any admissible business records to show that the plaintiff possessed the note at the time this action was commenced … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Porfert, 2020 NY Slip Op 06083, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

, ,

THE 2008 FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED ON A DECEASED DEFENDANT AND WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY WHICH DID NOT TRIGGER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION, THEREFORE, IS NOT TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was not time-barred. Although a foreclosure complaint was served in 2008, it named a deceased defendant and was therefore a nullity which did not accelerate the debt and start the statute of limitations running:

Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the action as untimely because the 2008 action was commenced only against the decedent borrower and was thus a legal nullity. We agree. “The six-year statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action begins to run from the due date for each unpaid installment unless the debt has been accelerated; once the debt has been accelerated by a demand or commencement of an action, the entire sum becomes due and the statute of limitations begins to run on the entire mortgage” … . Accordingly, as a general rule, the commencement of a mortgage foreclosure action triggers the statute of limitations … . As pertinent here, however, “[a] party may not commence a legal action or proceeding against a dead person, but must instead name the personal representative of the decedent’s estate” … . Greenpoint [Mortgage Funding] served but did not substitute the executor of decedent’s estate as a party in the 2008 action (see CPLR 1015 [a]). As such, the court lacked jurisdiction over the 2008 action, and that action was a legal nullity from its inception … . It follows that the 2008 action, a legal nullity, did not trigger the statute of limitations. Since this action was commenced within six years of the 2013 acceleration letter, the action was timely. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Stewart, 2020 NY Slip Op 05982, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

, ,

FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS CONTROLLED BY THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE, NOT THE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the provisions in the judgment of divorce, not the separation agreement, controlled father’s child support obligations:

Although the parties entered into a separation agreement directing what the husband was to pay for child support, the subsequent judgment of divorce specifically provided that “the child support obligations of the parties hereto shall be as directed by the [c]orrective [o]rder of [s]upport . . . entered on November 16, 2017.” A conflict therefore exists between the separation agreement and the subsequently entered judgment of divorce. In such circumstance, the judgment of divorce controls … .

Although Family Court was without jurisdiction to modify the terms of the separation agreement (see Kleila v Kleila, 50 NY2d 277, 282 [1980]), the fact that the corrective order of support was denominated as an order by Family Court or that it emanated from a Family Court proceeding does not mean the terms therein are invalid. The parties voluntarily consented to the terms in the corrective order of support. Additionally, there is nothing in the record indicating that the parties disputed any of those terms. Under these circumstances, and because the judgment of divorce specifically stated that the parties’ child support obligations were to be determined by the corrective order of support, we are not of the view that Family Court modified the separation agreement. Sherman v Sherman, 2020 NY Slip Op 05993, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

, ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE MANDATORY CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to vacate the default judgment should have been granted. The Third Department found that law office failure provided a reasonable excuse for the failure of the bank’s counsel to appear at the mandatory conference in this foreclosure action (22 NYCRR 202.27 (b)):

… [P]laintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its failure to appear at the conference and the existence of a potentially meritorious claim … . A determination of reasonable excuse is left to the sound discretion of Supreme Court and will only be disturbed where there has been a clear abuse of that discretion … . In exercising this discretion, Supreme Court may accept law office failure as an excuse “where the claim of law office failure is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default” … . …

Counsel explained that he was on vacation in Europe on the day scheduled for the conference. When counsel realized this mistake, he contacted Supreme Court and requested to appear telephonically. Supreme Court accommodated this request and, according to counsel, offered to initiate the call. However, when counsel did not receive a telephone call at the scheduled time, he telephoned chambers, and was informed that defendants had not yet appeared. Counsel avers that he never received a follow-up telephone call from Supreme Court. Counsel also provided his telephone records showing the outgoing calls that he had made that morning to chambers and no incoming calls from Supreme Court. As such, plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for not appearing at the conference. U.S. Bank, N.A. v Clarkson, 2020 NY Slip Op 05994, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

,

FAMILY COURT DOES NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO DECLARE THE PARENTAGE OF A CHILD BORN TO A MARRIED SAME-SEX COUPLE BECAUSE THE CHILD WAS NOT BORN “OUT-OF-WEDLOCK;” RECENTLY ENACTED LEGISLATION WILL SOON ALLOW SUCH A PETITION IN FAMILY COURT AND THE PARTIES MAY NOW SEEK A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE IN SUPREME COURT, WHICH HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, determined Family Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the petition to declare petitioners, a same-sex married couple, as the legal parents of the child conceived with donated sperm. Although the Family Court Act allows the court to determine “paternity” for a female parent, the court’s jurisdiction in that regard is limited to children born out-of-wedlock. The Third Department noted that legislation will soon allow a Family Court petition for a judgment of parentage and Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an application for a declaratory judgment on the issue:

… [T]he Legislature has only empowered Family Court to hear “proceedings to determine [parentage] and for the support of children born out-of-wedlock” … and further defined a child in Family Ct Act article 5 as one “born out of wedlock” … . Petitioners were married at all relevant times, and their child was not born out of wedlock. …

We note the recent enactment of Family Ct Act article 5-C, which will soon allow a petition for a judgment of parentage … . Moreover, if petitioners articulate how “an adjudication of the merits will result in immediate and practical consequences to” them … , they are presently free “to bring a declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court to determine the status of the child and the rights of all interested parties” … . Matter of Alison RR, 2020 NY Slip Op 06002, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

,

NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A COMMON LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined New York does not recognize a cause of action for sexual harassment:

… New York does not recognize an independent, common-law cause of action to recover damages for sexual harassment … . Rather, allegations of sexual harassment—which typically arise in the context of an asserted violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Law of 1964 (42 USC, ch 21, § 2000e et seq.), the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296), and/or the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107)—may form the basis of cognizable common-law tort theories such as, inter alia, assault and battery, negligent training and supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress … .

Accordingly, the Court of Claims should have granted that branch of the State’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss so much of the claim as was predicated upon a purported common-law cause of action to recover damages for sexual harassment. Budha T. v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 05966, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

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