You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS NOT WARRANTED; NO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to vacate the sua sponte dismissal of the foreclosure complaint should have been granted:

… [I]n a status conference order … , the Court Attorney Referee … directed the plaintiff to file an application seeking an order of reference by the date of the final status conference. Following the final status conference … , the Court Attorney Referee … determined that the plaintiff failed to show good cause for its failure to move for an order of reference as directed, and recommended that the action be dismissed. … [T]he Supreme Court directed dismissal of the complaint. …

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with any extraordinary circumstances warranting a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint … . Indeed, at the time the plaintiff was directed to file an application for an order of reference, an order of reference, as well as a judgment of foreclosure and sale, had already been issued. Bank of N.Y. v Ramirez, 2020 NY Slip Op 05024, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

, ,

MOTION TO DISMISS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a)(1) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant condominium-board-of-managers’ motion to dismiss plaintiff condominium-owner’s complaint based on documentary evidence should have been granted:

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant Board of Managers … (hereinafter the Board) … challenging the Board’s allocation of common expenses, after the Condominium’s first year of operation, in accordance with the first-year budget set forth in the Condominium offering plan. The plaintiff alleged that this method of allocating common expenses following the Condominium’s first year was a breach of the Board’s contractual duties and resulted in an overassessment of common charges to the plaintiff. * * *

As to the breach of contract cause of action, “[t]o succeed on a motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the documentary evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Here, the Condominium offering plan, declaration, and bylaws (hereinafter collectively the governing documents) utterly refuted the plaintiff’s factual allegations and conclusively established a defense as a matter of law to the breach of contract cause of action. In particular, the plaintiff admitted in the amended complaint that the common charges assessed to its unit since the inception of its ownership have been in accordance with the allocations set forth in “Schedule B — First Year’s Budget,” contained in the offering plan. The plaintiff’s allegation that the Board was obligated to reallocate the common expenses after the first year of the Condominium’s operation, based upon an assessment of the commercial unit owners’ actual use of and benefit from the services and other items covered by the common expenses, is refuted by the governing documents. Those documents do not provide for an assessment of actual use and benefits, but rather, specify that, on at least a yearly basis, the Board will “allocate and assess [the] Common Charges amongst the Unit Owners in accordance with allocations set forth in the First Year’s Budget.” 189 Schermerhorn Owners Co., LLC v Board of Mgrs. of the Be@Schermerhorn Condominium, 2020 NY Slip Op 05021, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

, , , , , ,

DESPITE THE ALLEGATION THAT THE DRIVER HAD LOGGED OFF THE UBER APP PRIOR TO THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY; THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD’S FINDING THAT THE DRIVER WAS EMPLOYED BY UBER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PRECLUSIVE EFFECT; ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case, determined: (1) a ruling by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that defendant driver was an employee of defendant Uber was not entitled collateral-estoppel effect pursuant to Labor Law 623( 2); (2) although the Labor Law 623(2) argument was not raised below, it raised a question of law which could not have been avoided below and therefore was considered on appeal; (3) the claim that defendant driver had logged off the Uber app at the time of the accident did not warrant summary judgment in favor of Uber on the vicarious liability theory:

An action may be considered to be within the scope of employment, thus rendering an employer vicariously liable for the conduct, when “the employee is engaged generally in the business of the employer, or if the act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . Whether an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment is generally a question of fact for the jury … .

Here, contrary to Uber’s contention, the averments [that the driver] had logged off of the Uber app 40 minutes before the accident were simply insufficient, without more, to eliminate all questions of fact as to whether Hussein was acting within the scope of his alleged employment with Uber at the time of the incident … . Uy v Hussein, 2020 NY Slip Op 05080, Second Dept 9-23-30

 

, ,

MOTION TO DISMISS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE TREATED AS A MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; TWO CAUSES OF ACTION NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action should have been treated as a motion for a declaration in the defendant’s favor. The action concerned fines imposed on plaintiff home-owner by NYC for the alleged failure to have the in-home elevator inspected once a year. Plaintiff alleged the relevant regulations were unconstitutional. Plaintiff also included causes of action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The contract and estoppel causes of action were dismissed because they were not included in plaintiff’s notice of claim. The regulations were deemed constitutional. With regard to the declaratory judgment cause of action and the notice of claim, the court wrote:

“‘A motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action prior to the service of an answer presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration'” … . “[W]here a cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court’s power to ‘render a declaratory judgment . . . as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy’ (CPLR 3001; see CPLR 3017[b]), a motion to dismiss that cause of action should be denied” … . However, upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, a court may reach the merits of a properly pleaded cause of action for a declaratory judgment where “‘no questions of fact are presented [by the controversy]'” … . Under such circumstances, the motion to dismiss the cause of action for failure to state a cause of action “should be treated as one seeking a declaration in [the] defendant’s favor and treated accordingly” … . * * *

A timely notice of claim is a condition precedent to maintaining an action against the City of New York (see Administrative Code § 7-201 … ). Here, the notice of claim attached to the complaint fails to include any allegations relating to the plaintiff’s causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and promissory estoppel … . Neuman v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 05052, Second Dept 9-23-30

 

, , ,

INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE A NECESSARY PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTY SUMMONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 (b) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking review of the village planning board’s decision re: petitioner’s application for approval of a subdivision should not have been dismissed. Because the planning board’s decision affected another landowner (160 South Ocean, LLC) Supreme Court dismissed the petition for failure to include a necessary party. The Second Department held Supreme Court should have ordered the party summoned pursuant to CPLR 1001 (b):

160 South Ocean, LLC, is a necessary party to this proceeding (see CPLR 1001[a]) subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore, the Supreme Court should have “order[ed] [it] summoned,” rather than denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding for failure to join a necessary … party (CPLR 1001[b] …). Accordingly, we reinstate the petition and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings, including a determination on the merits of the respondents’ motion, inter alia, to dismiss the petition … . Matter of Mulford Bay, LLC v Rocco, 2020 NY Slip Op 05050, Second Dept 9-23-30

 

,

THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 307 IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THE FAILURE TO MAKE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO COMPLY WARRANTED DENIAL OF A MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE PURSUANT TO BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 306-b (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ failure to make diligent efforts to serve defendant in accordance with Business Corporation Law 307 required dismissal of the complaint:

… [B]ecause the failure to strictly comply with the procedures of Business Corporation Law § 307 constitutes a jurisdictional defect, rather than a mere irregularity, the 30-day time period in Business Corporation Law § 307 (c) (2) is not subject to extension under CPLR 2004 … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs did not make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with the procedures of Business Corporation Law § 307. Although plaintiffs personally delivered the summons with notice to an authorized agent of the Secretary of State and sent a copy of the summons with notice by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the address that PLS had registered with the Bureau of Corporations and Charitable Organizations within Pennsylvania’s Department of State … , they made absolutely no effort to thereafter file the affidavit of compliance and the requisite accompanying documents … . Moreover, the excuse provided for plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve PLS in accordance with Business Corporation Law § 307 amounts to law office failure, an excuse that has been held to be insufficient to constitute good cause … . Thus, as plaintiffs did not make the requisite showing, they are not entitled to an extension “upon good cause” under CPLR 306-b. Garrow v Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 05010, Third Dept 9-17-20

 

, ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE WARRANTED VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion and vacated the dismissal of this foreclosure action for plaintiff bank’s failure to appear at a scheduled conference (22 NYCRR 202.27):

“22 NYCRR 202.27 gives a court the discretion to dismiss an action where [a] plaintiff fails to appear at any scheduled call of a calendar or at any conference” … . “To vacate a dismissal under 22 NYCRR 202.27, it [is] incumbent upon [a] plaintiff to provide a reasonable excuse for his [or her] failure to appear and to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action” … . “A motion to vacate a prior judgment or order is addressed to the court’s sound discretion, subject to reversal only where there has been a clear abuse of that discretion” … .

Here, plaintiff’s counsel explained that, due to a scheduling error, the assigned attorney actually appeared in court on the conference date but missed the calendar call. Law office failure may constitute a reasonable excuse for an appearance default …  Given the isolated nature of this nonappearance, we find that Supreme Court acted within its discretion in reconsidering and vacating the default dismissal … . Notably, plaintiff supported its vacatur motion with a duly executed affidavit of merit from its representative. We further recognize that plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action, as we affirmed the award of summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor … . Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that the court acted within its discretion in granting the motion to vacate. Onewest Bank, F.S.B. v Mazzone, 2020 NY Slip Op 05011, Third Dept 9-17-20

 

, ,

APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO FIND NEW COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NEARLY $800,000 JUDGMENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined appellant’s request for an adjournment to find new counsel should have been granted. The appellant’s attorney had also represented other respondents and had drawn up a settlement agreement. The appellant declined to sign settlement and the court entered a judgment against the appellant for nearly $800,000:

The granting of an adjournment for any purpose rests within the sound discretion of the court … , and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion … . In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the court must engage in a balanced consideration of numerous relevant factors, including the merit or lack of merit of the proceeding, prejudice or lack thereof to the petitioner, the number of adjournments granted, the lack of intent to deliberately default or abandon the action, and the length of the pendency of the proceeding … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s request for an adjournment to obtain new counsel … . There was no prejudice to the petitioner, no lack of diligence by the appellant, and no substantial delay in the proceeding … . Matter of People of State of N.Y. v Emstar Pizza, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04950, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , ,

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW YORK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE; THE PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO LEAD IN AN APARTMENT OWNED BY THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA), AN ENTITY SEPARATE FROM THE CITY; THEREFORE THE UNDERLYING CLAIM WAS PATENTLY MERITLESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to file a late notice of claim in this lead-paint exposure case should not have been granted with respect to the defendant City of New York. Plaintiff alleged exposure to lead in an apartment owned by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) which is a entity separate from the city:

” Ordinarily, the courts will not delve into the merits of an action on an application for leave to serve and file a late notice of claim’ … . However, permission to file a late notice of claim is properly denied where the underlying claim is patently meritless’ …”.

Here, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition on the ground that the claim, insofar as asserted against the City, is patently meritless. “Liability for a dangerous condition on real property must be predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property” … . It is undisputed that the apartment building in which the infant petitioner resided at the time of his injury was owned and operated by NYCHA, an entity which is separate from the City … . Furthermore, there is no basis for finding that the City owed the infant petitioner a duty based upon a special relationship between them … . Matter of K.G. v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 04943, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

A JUDGMENT SUBMITTED AFTER THE 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY 22 NYCRR 202.48 (WHERE THE DECISION DIRECTS SUBMISSION OF THE JUDGMENT) CAN BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly accepted a judgment submitted after the 60-day deadline, rather than deeming the judgment abandoned:

22 NYCRR 202.48 requires, inter alia, that a judgment be submitted within 60 days after the filing of the decision directing its submission, and failure to timely submit the judgment shall be deemed an abandonment of the proceeding. However, ” it is within the sound discretion of the court to accept a belated order or judgment for settlement'” … . “Moreover, a court should not deem an action or judgment abandoned where the result would not bring the repose to court proceedings that 22 NYCRR 202.48 was designed to effectuate, and would waste judicial resources'” … . Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting the petitioner’s judgment despite its untimely submission, since doing so brought finality to the proceedings and preserved judicial resources … . Matter of Crown Castle NG E., LLC v Town of Hempstead, 2020 NY Slip Op 04940, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

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