You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

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.​

 

,

THE SUPREME COURT’S PART RULES REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FIRST CONFERENCE THE MATTER BEFORE MOVING TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS; THE FAILURE TO CONFERENCE THE MATTER, HOWEVER, IS NOT A VALID GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer or compel compliance with discovery demands should not have been denied on the ground plaintiff failed to first conference the matter as required by the court’s Part Rules:

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that plaintiff failed to first conference the matter with the court in accordance with its Part Rules. The court may not condition the making of a motion on prior judicial approval … . Reyes v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03545, First Dept 6-10-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s failure to comply with Supreme Court’s Part Rule requiring a conference before moving to compel discovery was not a valid ground for denying the motion. A court may not condition the making of a motion on prior judicial approval.

 

, ,

HERE A MOTION TO RENEW AN APPEAL WAS GRANTED AND THE PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION WAS VACATED BASED ON THE ENACTMENT OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA); THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HAD HELD THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY BECAUSE THE BANK HAD DE-ACCELERATED THE DEBT; BUT FAPA RENDEREDTHE DE-ACCELERATION INVALID; SO THE INITIAL SUPREME COURT DECISION GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS REINSTATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department granted defendants’ motion to renew an appeal and vacated its prior decision because of the subsequent enactment of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). The Third Department had reversed summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the ground the bank had de-accelerated the debt rendering the foreclosure action timely. But the FAPA now precludes such a de-acceleration and applies retroactively. Therefore Supreme Court’s decision granting summary judgment dismissing the foreclosure action was reinstated:

Defendants now move to renew, contending that the enactment of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (hereinafter FAPA) is a change in law that requires reversal of our prior decision. Specifically, defendants claim that the second action is now barred by the statute of limitations because FAPA applies retroactively, and such law prohibits the reset of a statute of limitations by the unilateral act of a party such as by a de-acceleration letter. * * *

… [S]ince the second action was brought more than six years after plaintiff accelerated the debt, it is barred by the statute of limitations applicable to foreclosure actions … . Thus, defendants’ motion to renew is granted and this Court’s previous decision is vacated. On the merits of the underlying appeal, pursuant to FAPA, defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of Supreme Court, albeit on different grounds. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A. v Bresler, 2025 NY Slip Op 03363, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point: Although the issue was not discussed in the Third Department’s decision, apparently CPLR 2221 [e] [2] applies to a motion for renewal of an appeal.

 

, ,

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BEGINS TO RUN WHEN THERE HAS BEEN AN OPEN REPUDIATION OF FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS; HERE THERE HAS NOT BEEN SUCH AN OPEN REPUDIATION; THE STATUTE NEVER BEGAN TO RUN AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AS UNTIMELY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that this shareholder derivative action, which alleged breach of fiduciary duty, should not have been dismissed as time barred. Open repudiation of the the fiduciary obligation, which triggers the running of the statute of limitations, never occurred:

To dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired” … . “[C]laims alleging a breach of fiduciary duty do not accrue until there is either an open repudiation of the fiduciary obligation or a judicial settlement of the account” … . This is so because, “absent either repudiation or removal, the aggrieved part[y] [is] entitled to assume that the fiduciary would perform his or her fiduciary responsibilities” … . “The party asserting the statute of limitations defense bears the burden of proof on the issue” … . “Open repudiation requires proof of a repudiation by the fiduciary which is clear and made known to the beneficiaries” … . “Where there is any doubt on the record as to the conclusive applicability of a [s]tatute of [l]imitations defense, the motion to dismiss the proceeding should be denied, and the proceeding should go forward” … .

Here, defendants did not proffer, or even assert, that they have openly repudiated their obligations as fiduciaries or that the relationship has otherwise terminated. Lambos v Karabinis, 2025 NY Slip Op 03367, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point: Here there was never an open repudiation of fiduciary obligations so the statute of limitations on the breach-of-fiduciary-duty cause of action never began to run.

 

, , ,

HERE FATHER MOVED TO DISMISS MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CHILD SUPPORT AT THE CLOSE OF MOTHER’S PROOF; AT THAT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE COURT MUST ACCEPT PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE AS TRUE AND RESOLVE ALL CREDIBILITY QUESTIONS IN PETITIONER’S FAVOR; THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

he Third Department, reversing Family Court’s dismissal of mother’s petition to modify child support, determined that the judge applied the wrong standard when deciding father’s motion to dismiss at the close of mother’s proof. At that stage the judge must accept petitioner’s evidence as true, and must resolve all credibility issues in petitioner’s favor. The judge’s comments on witness credibility indicated the correct standard was not applied:

A noncustodial parent’s statutory duty to support his or her child until they reach 21 years of age may be suspended where the noncustodial parent establishes that the custodial parent has wrongfully interfered with or withheld visitation rights … . Although the parent seeking such suspension must ultimately demonstrate “deliberate frustration” or “active interference” with their visitation rights by a “preponderance of the evidence” … , where, as here, “Family Court is tasked with deciding a motion to dismiss at the close of the petitioner’s proof, the court must accept the petitioner’s evidence as true and afford the petitioner every favorable inference that could reasonably be drawn from that evidence, including resolving all credibility questions in the petitioner’s favor” … . * * *

Family Court’s commentary on witness credibility in resolving the subject motion to dismiss suggests to this Court that an incorrect legal standard was applied … . When viewed in the proper light, we find that the … proof was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss …  Thus, without passing judgment upon the ultimate success of the mother’s claim, we reverse. Matter of Crystal NN. v Joshua OO, 2025 NY Slip Op 03368, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point: In this modification of child support proceeding, father moved to dismiss mother’s petition at the close of mother’s proof. In evaluating the motion at that stage of the proceedings, the court must accept all of petitioner’s evidence as true, afford the petitioner all favorable inferences from the evidence, and resolve all credibility issues in petitioner’s favor. The failure to apply those standards to consideration of the motion to dismiss requires reversal.

 

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