You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to enter a default judgment in this pedestrian accident case should have granted. The law-office-failure allegations were deemed insufficient:

In order to successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment, a defendant who has failed to timely appear or answer the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action … .

Here, the … defendants’ conclusory explanation that their attorney misplaced the file and that the office was understaffed was insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for the default … . Since the … defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default, this Court need not consider whether they proffered a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . Maldonado v Mosquera, 2020 NY Slip Op 04934, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED FOR THE MOVING DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED THE SAME RELIEF TO DEFENDANTS WHO DID NOT SO MOVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that the judge should not have, sua sponte, vacated the judgment of foreclosure as against those defendants who did not move for that relief:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . “[T]he defense of lack of jurisdiction based on improper service is personal in nature and may only be raised by the party improperly served'” … . Here, Hickson was the only defendant who moved to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court had no basis to, sua sponte, vacate so much of the judgment of foreclosure and sale as was against the defendants other than Hickson and to direct the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants for lack personal jurisdiction. Lehman Bros. Bank v Hickson, 2020 NY Slip Op 04932, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , ,

CAUSES OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND AN ACCOUNTING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; FAILURE TO TRANSFER ASSETS ALLEGED A CONTINUING WRONG AND PAYMENTS WHICH ALLEGEDLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD WERE ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated causes of action for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and an accounting against her sister (Weisel), the sole manager of A & Z, of which plaintiff is also a member. The court noted that the allegation that Weisel did not transfer assets to A & Z alleged a continuing wrong, so payments allegedly owed to A & Z within the statute of limitations period were actionable:

To state a cause of action for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must allege that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered … . …

“[A] fiduciary owes a duty of undivided and undiluted loyalty to those whose interests the fiduciary is to protect . . . barring not only blatant self-dealing, but also requiring avoidance of situations in which a fiduciary’s personal interest possibly conflicts with the interest of those owed a fiduciary duty” … . Here, the plaintiff has alleged that Wiesel is the sole manager of A & Z—which, if true, would impose a fiduciary duty on Wiesel arising out of her position as the sole manager of A & Z … . The amended complaint sufficiently alleges that Wiesel is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff, arising out of both her position as sole manager of A & Z and her familial relationship with the plaintiff … .  …

A cause of action for accounting requires “the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship and a breach of the duty imposed by that relationship respecting property in which the party seeking the accounting has an interest” … . Greenberg v Wiesel, 2020 NY Slip Op 04927, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, ,

THE STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED WITHIN THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank did not prove the debt had been de-accelerated and therefore did not demonstrate the foreclosure action was not time-barred. It was not demonstrated that the stipulation of discontinuance affirmatively revoked the initial acceleration of the debt:

“A lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action” … .

Here, there is no evidence in the record of any affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period following the initiation of the 2008 foreclosure action … . The only evidence submitted by the plaintiff to establish its affirmative act of revocation was a printout of the Queens County Clerk Minutes, showing that a stipulation of discontinuance and a consent to cancel the lis pendens were filed in the 2008 foreclosure action on July 1, 2013. The plaintiff did not submit a copy of the stipulation of discontinuance. A stipulation of discontinuance will not, by itself, constitute an affirmative act of revocation where the stipulation is silent on the issue of the election to accelerate, and does not otherwise indicate that the plaintiff would accept installment payments from the defendant … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hussain, 2020 NY Slip Op 04997, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

,

THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH A DEFENSE AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff stated a cause of action, in effect, to recover damages for breach of contract based on an alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the parties’ contract . The plaintiff alleged, in effect, that there was an implied understanding that the defendant would cooperate with the plaintiff’s efforts to legally change the usage of the rental space, which would require approval by the DOB, and, therefore, the defendant’s…  failure to cooperate in legalizing the premises constitutes a breach of contract.

“A party seeking dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) on the ground that its defense is based on documentary evidence must submit documentary evidence that resolves all factual issues as a matter of law and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff’s claim” … . “In order for evidence to qualify as documentary, it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant either was not “documentary” within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) or failed to conclusively establish a defense to the third cause of action as a matter of law … . Twinkle Play Corp. v Alimar Props., Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 04987, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE PROPERLY DENIED; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE CLAIM FOR LOSS OF SERVICES BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion to dismiss claims that were not in the notice of claim was properly granted, and plaintiffs’ motions to amend the notice of claim and for leave to file a late notice of claim were properly denied. The Second Department noted that the loss of services claim should not have been dismissed (sua sponte) because that relief was not requested. The action alleged negligent supervision by the school. Plaintiff student was allegedly pushed into a wall during gym class by another student who had been bullying her for some time:

The plaintiffs’ new claims of other purported bullying incidents and Dupper’s [plaintiff-student’s father’s] claim that he suffered stress, anxiety, and depression as a result of the … incident constitute new theories of liability which were not included in the notice of claim and should be dismissed … . …

The plaintiffs’ proposed amendments to the notice of claim add substantive new facts and new theories of liability not set forth in the original notice of claim and which are not permitted as late filed amendments to a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs’ failure to include a proposed notice of claim with their cross motion alone was a sufficient basis for denying that branch of the cross motion … . C.D. v Goshen Cent. Sch. Dist., 2020 NY Slip Op 04916, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , ,

THE ONLY WAY TO COMPEL A JUDGE TO SIGN A DOCUMENT TO CREATE AN APPEALABLE PAPER IS A MANDAMUS ACTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78; THE FAILURE TO BRING THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING PRECLUDED APPEAL IN THIS CASE; THE OPINION INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN APPEALABLE PAPER ARE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED DEFINITIVE ON THE TOPIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over a concurrence, determined the plaintiffs’ only option when the judge refused to sign the transcript of the oral decision (CPLR 2219) and, in the alternative, refused to sign the proposed order with notice of settlement (22 NYCRR 202.48[a]), was a mandamus proceeding to compel the judge to sign. Without the judge’s signature, there was no appealable paper and plaintiffs could not appeal the decision disqualifying plaintiffs’ counsel. Because the four-month statute of limitations for bringing an Article 78 (mandamus) action had long passed, the plaintiffs could not bring the appeal. The opinion includes a clear and comprehensive explanation of what constitutes appealable paper pursuant to CPLR 2219 and 22 NYCRR 202.48[a] which should be saved as a reference resource:

… [T]he Justice failed or refused to later sign the transcript of the proceedings, and therefore, the transcript never qualified as an order for purposes of its enforcement or for an appeal … . While the transcript bears the signature of the court reporter who certified its truth and accuracy, the court reporter’s certification does not substitute for the plain and separate obligation set forth in CPLR 2219(a) that a judge or justice sign his or her name or initials to the document (see CPLR 5512[a] …). The absence of the Justice’s signature on the transcript had the effect of preventing the plaintiffs from directly appealing the adverse determination to the Appellate Division.

Likewise, the Justice failed or refused to sign the proposed order that was submitted to him, with a copy of the transcript and with notice of settlement. Such an order, if signed with or without modification of its proposed language, would have become an enforceable order and subject to appeal. Parties are entitled to orders that are both enforceable and appealable, and those fundamental rights should not be thwarted by any jurists’ unwitting failure to abide by the requirements of CPLR 2219(a) … . * * *

Absent a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the plaintiffs can receive no relief on this appeal. This Court cannot compel under the guise of CPLR 2219(a) and 22 NYCRR 202.48 relief that can only be properly accomplished by mandamus, which is now untimely. Charalabidis v Elnagar, 2020 NY Slip Op 04913, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO SERVE A CONFERENCE SCHEDULING ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS, WHICH APPARENTLY RESULTED IN THE PLAINTIFFS NOT ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE, DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ FULLY SUBMITTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHICH MUST BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have dismissed defendants’ summary judgment motion in this car accident case because defendants apparently did not serve an order scheduling a conference on the plaintiffs. Apparently the defendants appeared at the conference but the plaintiffs did not:

22 NYCRR 202.27 governs what a court may do in the event that the plaintiff, the defendant, or both parties fail to appear at a scheduled calendar call or conference. Specifically, where the plaintiff appears but the defendant does not, the court may grant judgment by default or order an inquest … . Where the defendant appears but the plaintiff does not, the court may dismiss the action and order a severance of counterclaims or cross claims … . If no party appears, the court may make such order as appears just … .

Here, since the defendants apparently appeared at the conference … , but the plaintiffs did not appear, the sanction available to the Supreme Court was the dismissal of the action and the severance of any counterclaims or cross claims. Clearly, the denial of the defendants’ summary judgment motion as a sanction for not serving the plaintiffs with a copy of the order … , was not a penalty authorized under the plain language of 22 NYCRR 202.27(b). Under the circumstances of this case, where the defendants’ motion was fully submitted and ready to be decided several months prior to the court’s issuance of the … order scheduling a conference, the court should not have denied the motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 and should have decided the motion on its merits …  Indeed, even if neither party had appeared for the scheduled settlement conference, in which case the court, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27(c), was authorized to make “such order as appears just,” under the circumstances present here, it would have been an improvident exercise of discretion to sanction the defendants by denying their fully submitted summary judgment motion without regard to an evaluation of its merit … . Charalabidis v Elnagar, 2020 NY Slip Op 04912, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, THEREFORE THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute because issue was never joined:

CPLR 3216(b)(1) states that no dismissal should be made under this statute unless issue has been joined. ” A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met'” … . Here, none of the defendants submitted an answer to the complaint and, thus, issue was never joined (see CPLR 3216[b][1] …). Since at least one precondition set forth in CPLR 3216 was not met, the Supreme Court was without power to issue an order conditionally dismissing the action pursuant to that statute … . OneWest Bank, FSB v Singh, 2020 NY Slip Op 04957, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF SHE DID NOT LIVE AT THE ADDRESS WHERE THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED TO WARRANT A HEARING; THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT HER FAILURE TO UPDATE HER ADDRESS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES WAS TO PREVENT SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to enter a default judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted without first holding a hearing on defendant’s claim she was never served with the complaint. The defendant presented proof, including a lease, demonstrating she did not live at the address where service was made. The fact that defendant had not updated her address with the Department of Motor Vehicles did preclude defendant from demonstrating she lived at a different address because there was no evidence of a deliberate misrepresentation to prevent service:

… [T]he defendant successfully rebutted the process servers’ affidavits through her specific averments that, at the time of each purported service, neither the New York Avenue address, nor the subject premises, was her residence, actual dwelling place, or usual place of abode … . Rather, the defendant averred that at the time of each purported service, she resided at an address on Albany Avenue in Brooklyn. The defendant annexed to her affidavit her lease for the Albany Avenue premises covering the period from January 25, 2014, through January 31, 2015, money orders made payable to the Albany Avenue landlord within the lease period, the defendant’s 2015 W-2 bearing the Albany Avenue address, utility bills during the lease period bearing the Albany Avenue address, and bank statements during the lease period bearing the Albany Avenue address. These records, in conjunction with the defendant’s sworn statements, are evidence that the defendant did not reside at the locations where process was served, and were sufficient to warrant a hearing … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Esdelle, 2020 NY Slip Op 04956, 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