You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

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.

 

, ,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE HIS PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED AT THE TIME THE PETITION WAS BROUGHT; THE PETITION ADEQUATELY ALLEGED PATERNITY WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY A DNA TEST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s custody petition should not have dismissed on the ground he had not been adjudicated the biological father at the time the custody petition was brought. The petition sufficiently alleged paternity, which was subsequently confirmed by a DNA test:

The Family Court, in effect, granted that branch of the petitioner’s cross-motion which was for a genetic marker test. The DNA test results of the court-ordered genetic marker test revealed that the probability of the petitioner’s paternity was 99.99%. Thereafter, the court issued an order of filiation, on consent, adjudging the petitioner to be the child’s biological father. However, in a separate order, the court, inter alia, granted that branch of the mother’s motion which was to dismiss the custody petition, determining that the petitioner lacked standing to file the custody petition because at the time he filed the custody petition, “his parentage of the child had not yet been legally established.” The petitioner appeals.

“Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 70, parents have standing to seek custody of or parental access with their children” .. . Here, the custody petition sufficiently alleged that the petitioner was the biological father of the child. The mother’s affidavits did not expressly deny the petitioner’s paternity, nor offer any facts to refute his allegations of paternity. Moreover, the Family Court entered the order of filiation on consent, and it is undisputed that the petitioner was adjudicated to be the child’s biological father before, or at the same time that, the court granted that branch of the mother’s motion which was to dismiss the custody petition. Accordingly, the court erred in determining that the petitioner did not have standing to file the custody petition because he had not been adjudicated the biological father of the child before the custody petition was filed … . Matter of Kevin C. v Trisha J., 2025 NY Slip Op 03324, Second Dept 6-4-25

Practice Point: Father’s standing to bring a custody petition is not dependent upon an adjudication of paternity.. Here the custody petition adequately alleged paternity, which was subsequently confirmed by a DNA test.

 

, , ,

THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO FILE A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT NECESSARILY FATAL TO A PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE WHERE, AS HERE, THE MUNICIPALITY HAD ACTUAL TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CLAIM AND IS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioners’ motion for leave to file a late notice of claim in this traffic accident case involving a city bus should have been granted. Although the excuse for failure to time file (petitioners’ infancy) was not reasonable, that flaw was not fatal because the city had timely actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim and was not prejudiced by the delay:​

Here, the respondents acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioners’ claim. Although a police report regarding an automobile accident does not, in and of itself, constitute notice of a claim to a municipality or public corporation, where the report reflects that an employee of the municipality or public corporation committed a potentially actionable wrong, such entity can be found to have actual knowledge … . In this case, the police report, which the petitioners sent to the NYCTA [NYC Transit Authority] on or about July 2, 2021, indicated that the multivehicle collision was set in motion by Robinson, who caused the bus to come into contact with the rear of another vehicle. The police report also indicated that several bus passengers reported injuries and named the injured petitioners, among others. In addition, the respondents were in possession of the injured petitioners’ medical records. Under these circumstances, the respondents acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioners’ claim … .

Moreover, since the respondents acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioners’ claim, the petitioners met their initial burden of showing a lack of prejudice to the respondents’ ability to maintain a defense … . Matter of Arvizu v New York City Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 03323, Second Dept 6-4-25

Practice Point: A municipality will be deemed to have timely actual notice of a claim where, as here, the police report reflects that an employee of the municipality committed a potentially actionable wrong.​​​​​​​​​​​

 

, ,

HERE AN ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS WAS DEEMED NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bank’s argument in this foreclosure action should not have been considered because it was raised for the first time in reply papers. In its reply, the plaintiff argued that the foreclosure action was not time-barred because defendant revived the statute of limitations by making payments within the six years prior to the commencement of the action:

[Plaintiff] failed to establish, prima facie, that this action was not time-barred. The plaintiff’s submissions revealed that the mortgage debt was accelerated in January 2007, when the plaintiff commenced the first prior action to foreclose the mortgage … . This action was commenced in July 2018, more than six years later. The plaintiff’s contention that payments the defendant made on the loan as late as September 2013 served to renew the statute of limitations, making this action timely, is not properly before this Court, as it was raised for the first time in reply papers submitted to the Supreme Court, and there is no indication that the defendant was afforded an opportunity to submit a surreply or that this new argument responded to allegations the defendant raised for the first time in his opposition papers … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Cooper, 2025 NY Slip Op 03297, Second Dept 6-4-25

Practice Point: Here the Second Department noted that an argument raised for the first time in reply papers was not properly before the appellate court. There was no indication sur-reply papers were submitted or that the reply-argument was a response to an issue raised by the other party.

 

, , ,

HERE IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, PLAINTIFF STATED THE WRONG ACCIDENT-DATE IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; BECAUSE THE WRONG DATE WAS NOT USED IN BAD FAITH AND THE CITY WAS NOT PREJUDICED, PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the wrong accident-date in the notice of claim did not warrant dismissal of the action. The wrong date was not willful and the municipality was not prejudiced. The plaintiff alleged she was injured when the driver of the defendant NYC Transit Authority’s bus stopped short:

“‘To enable authorities to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of a claim, persons seeking to recover in tort against a municipality are required, as a precondition to suit, to serve a Notice of Claim'” … . General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) requires that the notice of claim set forth, among other things, “the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose” … . “‘[I]n determining compliance with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e, courts should focus on the purpose served by a Notice of Claim: whether based on the claimant’s description municipal authorities can locate the place, fix the time and understand the nature of the accident'” … . “Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), a court has discretion to grant leave to serve an amended notice of claim where the error in the original notice was made in good faith and where the other party has not been prejudiced thereby” … .

Here, there is no indication in the record that the accident date listed in the notice of claim and the complaint was set forth in bad faith … . Rather, the plaintiff’s mistake was based upon her reliance on a police report that incorrectly listed the accident date … . Moreover, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the proposed amendment to the accident date was purely technical in nature and did not substantively change the nature of the claim … .

Furthermore, the record does not reflect that the defendants will be prejudiced by the plaintiff’s delay in moving for leave to amend the notice of claim. Under the circumstances of this case, including that the plaintiff received medical assistance at the accident site, that specific details regarding the circumstances of the accident, including the accident location and bus route, were set forth in a police report and the notice of claim, and that the plaintiff’s error in listing an accident date several days prior to the actual date of the accident was minimal, the defendants could have ascertained the date of the accident “with a modicum of effort” … . Hernandez v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03312, Second Dept 5-4-25

Practice Point: Here the wrong accident-date was included in the notice of claim and the plaintiff moved to amend the notice. Because the wrong date was not used in bad faith (the date was taken from the police report) and because the city was not prejudiced by the error, plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE BANK’S FAILURE TO OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT RULE REQUIRING THAT A MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER OF REFERENCE WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s failure to comply with Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rule 8, which requires the bank to file a motion for judgment of foreclosure withing one year of entry of the order of reference, warranted dismissal of the action:

“Rule 8 requires a plaintiff in a foreclosure action to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure within one year of entry of the order of reference” … . “Where the plaintiff offers an excuse for its failure to comply with Rule 8, ‘[t]he determination of whether [the] excuse is reasonable is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court'” … . “Reversal is warranted ‘if that discretion is improvidently exercised'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for failure to comply with Rule 8. The order of reference was entered on August 28, 2012, * * * [and] the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse as to why [the bank] did not move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale prior to August 28, 2013. Contrary to the court’s determination, the failure to comply with Rule 8 is a sufficient ground upon which to dismiss a foreclosure action … . Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v Kahan, 2025 NY Slip Op 03354, Second Dept 6-4-25

Practice Point: Here the bank’s failure to comply with a Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rule warranted dismissal of the foreclosure action.

 

, , ,

HERE, EVEN THOUGH THE INITIAL ACTION WAS TIMELY ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS PROVISION” EXTENSION IN CPLR 205(A), THE SECOND ACTION, COMMENCED AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST FOR LACK OF STANDING, CAN BE DEEMED TIMELY UNDER A SECOND CPLR 205(A) SIX-MONTH “SAVINGS PROVISION” EXTENSION (SECOND DEPT).​ ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice LaSalle, determined the “savings provision” of CPLR 205(a) allows a second six-month extension of the time to file a new action after a dismissal which is not on the merits. In this wrongful death and Public Health Law 2801-d action against a nursing home and hospital, the complaint was filed an served while the application for appointment of an executor was pending. The complaint was dismissed because the plaintiff did not have standing. Although the statute of limitations had run, the initial action was timely because of the savings provision in CPLR 205(a). The action was commenced again whiled the application for appointment of an executor was still pending. This time the complaint was dismissed with prejudice on the ground the six-month extension in CPLR 205(a) is only available once:​

The primary issue raised on this appeal is whether CPLR 205(a) permits a litigant to commence an otherwise untimely new action within six months of the dismissal of a prior action where that prior action was, itself, made timely only by a previous application of CPLR 205(a). This issue appears to be one of first impression in a State apellate court. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (hereinafter the Second Circuit) has answered this question in the negative (see Ray v Ray, 22 F4th 69 [2d Cir]), that holding is not binding on this Court, and we respectfully disagree with it and conclude that the plain language of CPLR 205(a) does allow a litigant to commence such an action. Accordingly, while the Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant complaint on the ground that the plaintiff had not yet obtained letters testamentary to become the personal representative of the decedent’s estate, the dismissal should have been without prejudice instead of with prejudice. ​​Tumminia v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 2025 NY Slip Op 03352, Second Dept 6-4-25

Practice Point: Here an action which was timely only by the application of the six-month “savings provision” extension in CPLR 205(a), and which was dismissed for lack of standing, did not preclude a second identical action which could only be deemed timely by a second application of the CPLR 205(a) savings provision.​

 

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