You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

FAMILY COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER A NONRESIDENT PUTATIVE FATHER IN A PATERNITY ACTION AS LONG AS THE FACTS HAVE A CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK STATE; THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the paternity petition should not have been dismissed with prejudice because there are circumstances where the New York Family Court can obtain jurisdiction over an out-of-state respondent in the paternity action:

In a paternity proceeding, personal jurisdiction over a nonresident putative father may be established pursuant to Family Court Act § 580-201. Petitioner, however, admittedly failed to allege in her petition that respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with the mother in New York State at the time of conception, or that he had any other relevant ties to New York State, and no other grounds for jurisdiction apply (see Family Ct Act § 580-201 [6], [8]). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court should have granted the motion on the ground that petitioner failed to state a cause of action predicated upon respondent’s sexual intercourse with petitioner in New York State … . Inasmuch as such a dismissal is not on the merits, however, we further conclude that the petition should be dismissed without prejudice … . Matter of Joyce M.M. v Robert J.G., 2020 NY Slip Op 05616, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

,

DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED ABOUT EIGHT FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE VIOLATING THE COVENANT OR RESTRICTION REQUIRING TEN FEET; PLAINTIFF, AFTER A BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES, WAS NOT, HOWEVER, ENTITLED TO EQUITABLE RELIEF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the defendant had violated a covenant or restriction imposed on property owners in a subdivision, but that plaintiff was not entitled to equitable relief. Defendant had constructed the home about eight feet from the property line and the covenant or restriction required ten feet:

… [D]efendant knew, or should have known, of the side setback violation on the right side, yet he chose to construct his house in disregard of the fourth paragraph of the covenants and restrictions, defendant did not act in good faith with respect to that violation, and the hardship was self imposed … . … [E]nforcement of the restriction would have little benefit to plaintiff inasmuch as the violation had no impact on the value of plaintiff’s home, the violation did not detract from any neighbor’s view of the lake, and the violation occurred on the side of defendant’s property that was not adjacent to another residential lot. A balancing of the equities under all the circumstances of the case established that plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief for the right side lot line violation … . Kleist v Stern, 2020 NY Slip Op 05652, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEALED THE ENTIRE COURT RECORD, REDACTION IS APPROPRIATE FOR TRADE SECRETS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the entire court record should not have been sealed. The facts were not discussed, but the court noted redaction is appropriate to protect trade secrets, confidential business information or proprietary information:

We reverse the order of the motion court for two reasons. First, the motion court erred by sealing the entire court file. As we have previously explained, “We recognize that it may be easier for the parties and the motion court to seal an entire court record, rather than make a determination on a document by document basis about sealing, but administrative convenience is not a compelling reason to justify sealing” … . Indeed, “In camera review and appropriate redaction is a valid method of protecting trade secrets” …

Second, defendants failed to meet their burden of showing grounds for protecting from public access any or all of the information in Exhibit A to the complaint, let alone the entire court record. They failed to show that Exhibit A, or any other document likely to become part of the record, contains trade secrets, confidential business information, or proprietary information … . Vergara v Mission Capital Advisors, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05610,First Dept 10-8-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, IN THE FACE OF AWARDING DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES, REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, setting aside the verdict for future damages and ordering a new trial on that issue, determined the awards for past pain and suffering and future medical expenses rendered the failure to award damages for future pain and suffering a material deviation from reasonable compensation:

Plaintiff failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the verdict was inconsistent because the claim was raised after the jury had been discharged. However, where the jury verdict awards plaintiff damages for past pain and suffering and future medical expenses, but declines to award damages for future pain and suffering, the verdict on future pain and suffering is contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and constitutes a material deviation from what would be reasonable compensation … . Paucay v D.P. Group Gen. Contrs./Devs., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05611, First Dept 10-8-20

 

CRITERIA FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the defendant should have been granted and explained the criteria:

CPLR 306-b provides, in pertinent part, that “[s]ervice of the summons and complaint . . . shall be made within one hundred twenty days after the commencement of the action. . . . If service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service.”

“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. Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter. However, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant”… . CPLR 306-b “empowers a court faced with the dismissal of a viable claim to consider any factor relevant to the exercise of its discretion. No one factor is determinative—the calculus of the court’s decision is dependent on the competing interests of the litigants and a clearly expressed desire by the Legislature that the interests of justice be served” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint in the interest of justice, considering, inter alia, the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the plaintiff’s cause of action, the plaintiff’s prompt request for the extension, and the lack of demonstrable prejudice to the defendant … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Viera, 2020 NY Slip Op 05549, Second Dept 10-7-2

 

THE LATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND THE EXCUSE OFFERED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the late summary judgment motion and an excuse offered in reply papers should not have been considered:

Pursuant to CPLR 3212, courts have “considerable discretion to fix a deadline for filing summary judgment motions,” so long as the deadline is not “earlier than 30 days after filing the note of issue or (unless set by the court) later than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown” … . As a general matter, a court should not consider a good cause argument proffered by a movant if it is presented for the first time in reply papers … . Here, it is undisputed that the defendant moved for summary judgment approximately 30 days after the date set by the Supreme Court without seeking leave of the court or offering an explanation showing good cause for the delay in their moving papers. As a result, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in considering that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and in considering the good cause arguments raised for the first time in the defendant’s reply papers … . O’Neil v Environmental Prods. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05516, Second Dept 10-7-20

 

, ,

THE MERE PRESENCE OF A REINSTATEMENT CLAUSE IN THE MORTGAGE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS A BORROWER IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE ARREARS AND STOP THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT, DOES NOT AFFECT OR IMPEDE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT WHEN A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS STARTED; THE DEBT HERE WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN 2009 RENDERING THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, agreeing with the Second Department, determined the mere presence of reinstatement clause in a mortgage, which allows a borrower who has missed payments to pay the amount of the missed payments and resume monthly payments, does not affect or impede the acceleration of the debt when a foreclosure action is brought. Therefore the foreclosure action at issue was time-barred:

The mortgage is a uniform instrument issued by Fannie Mae, among others, for use in New York State and contains several provisions that are relevant on appeal. Section 22 (acceleration provision) permits the lender to require immediate payment of the loan in full upon the borrower’s default, provided certain conditions are met. Section 19 (reinstatement provision) grants a borrower in default the right to effectively de-accelerate the maturity of the mortgage debt by paying in full the past due amount, thereby returning the loan to its pre-default status. * * *

… [W]e conclude that the mortgage’s reinstatement provision does not in any way affect or impede acceleration of the full mortgage debt. The reinstatement provision is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the mortgage’s acceleration provision, which governs when Fannie Mae could exercise its option to accelerate the full debt … . Further, the language of the reinstatement provision “indicates that [Fannie Mae’s] right to accelerate the entire debt may be exercised before the [borrower’s] rights under the reinstatement provision . . . are exercised or extinguished” … . Thus, in effect, the reinstatement provision merely “gives the borrower the contractual option to de-accelerate the mortgage when certain conditions are met” … —which presupposes that an acceleration has already occurred. Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Tortora, 2020 NY Slip Op 05410, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE INVOLVING A LIMOUSINE BUS WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT ADDRESS ON APPEAL THE ASPECT OF THE DECISION WHICH DISMISSED THE FAILURE-TO-PROVIDE-SEATBELTS CAUSE OF ACTION; THEREFORE ANY CHALLENGE TO THAT ASPECT OF THE DISMISSAL WAS ABANDONED BY PLAINTIFFS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint in this traffic accident case, noted that the plaintiffs’ failure to address an aspect of the decision granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment constituted an abandonment of any challenge to that portion of the decision. The motion court had dismissed the complaint in its entirety including plaintiffs’ cause of action alleging defendants were negligent in not providing seatbelts for the limousine in which plaintiff was a passenger. However the seatbelt ruling was not challenged by the plaintiffs on appeal. Therefore Supreme Court’s dismissal of the seatbelt cause of action remained in effect:

Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on application of the emergency doctrine. ” ‘The existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a driver’s response thereto generally constitute issues of fact’ ” … . Upon our review of the record, we conclude that “whether the emergency doctrine precludes liability presents a question of fact and, therefore, summary judgment for defendants . . . was inappropriate” … .

We note, however, that the court also granted that part of defendants’ motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim that defendants were negligent in failing to provide seatbelts on the ground that defendants were under no duty to do so. Plaintiffs failed to brief any argument with respect to the dismissal of that claim, thereby abandoning any challenge to that part of the order … . We therefore modify the order by denying the motion in part and reinstating the complaint except insofar as the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, alleges that defendants were negligent in failing to provide seatbelts. VanEpps v Mancuso, 2020 NY Slip Op 05359, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

, , ,

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-105, NOT 17-101, APPLIES TO THE REVIVAL OF AN EXPIRED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE; THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS HERE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF SECTION 17-105; FORECLOSURE WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, determined that General Obligations Law 17-105, not 17-101, applied to the revival of an expired statute of limitations for foreclosure of a mortgage and the documents in this case did not meet the criteria of section 17-105. Therefore the foreclosure action was time-barred. The court noted that Supreme Court should have issued a judgment declaring the rights of the parties pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law 1501 and 1521:

General Obligations Law § 17-105 (1) provides, in relevant part:

“A waiver of the expiration of the time limited for commencement of an action to foreclose a mortgage of real property or a mortgage of a lease of real property, or a waiver of the time that has expired, or a promise not to plead the expiration of the time limited, or not to plead the time that has expired, or a promise to pay the mortgage debt, if made after the accrual of a right of action to foreclose the mortgage and made, either with or without consideration, by the express terms of a writing signed by the party to be charged is effective, subject to any conditions expressed in the writing, to make the time limited for commencement of the action run from the date of the waiver or promise.”

* * *

… [T]the financial statements submitted by defendant do not meet the requirements of subdivision (1) of section 17-105 because those documents merely list the mortgage as a liability and do not constitute an express promise to pay the mortgage debt … . Batavia Townhouses, Ltd. v Council of Churches Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05331, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

, , ,

WHEN THE MERITS OF A MOTION TO REARGUE ARE ADDRESSED THE DENIAL IS APPEALABLE; THE PERSONAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NOTICE OF SALE PURSUANT TO THE LIEN LAW WERE NOT MET, THEREFORE THE 10-DAY PERIOD FOR BRINGING A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE LIEN DID NOT START TO RUN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that where the court addresses the merits of a motion to reargue it will be deemed to have granted the motion to reargue for purposes of appeal. Therefore, although the denial of a motion to reargue is not appealable, the denial after addressing the merits is appealable. In that case the motion is treated as if the motion to reargue were granted and then the original decision was adhered to. The court also noted that the requirements for the personal service of a notice of sale were not met in this case. Therefore the 10-day period for bringing a special proceeding to determined the validity of the lien did not start to run:

“Although, generally, no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to reargue, where the court actually addresses the merits of the moving party’s motion, we will deem the court to have granted reargument and adhered to its prior decision — notwithstanding language in the order indicating that reargument was denied” … . * * *

Under Lien Law §201-a, petitioner’s 10-day time period to “commence a special proceeding to determine the validity of the lien” does not begin to run until service upon it of the “notice of sale” by respondent, the lienor. Service of such notice of sale by the lienor must be effectuated by personal service “within the county where [the] lien arose,” unless the person to be served “cannot with due diligence be found within such county” (Lien Law § 201). … As Supreme Court correctly found, and as the record reflects, respondent failed to submit any proof that it exercised due diligence in seeking to effect personal service upon petitioner of the notice of lien and sale before improperly resorting to the statutory alternative of certified mail service. As a result, the 10-day time limitation for petitioner to challenge the lien under Lien Law § 201-a did not begin to run … . Matter of Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v J.D. Mar. Serv., 2020 NY Slip Op 05260, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

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