You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

DEFENDANT OFFERED MORE TO SETTLE THE ACTION THAN WAS AWARDED PLAINTIFF AFTER TRIAL; DEFENDANT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO CPLR 3220 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to CPLR 3220 in this breach of contract action. The defendant offered $950,000 to settle the action before trial and the plaintiff was awarded about $525,000:

CPLR 3220 provides, in relevant part, that, in an action to recover damages for breach of contract, at any time at least 10 days prior to trial, a defendant may make “a written offer to allow judgment to be taken against [it] for a sum therein specified, with costs then accrued, if the [defendant] fails in his defense.” If the plaintiff rejects the offer and thereafter “fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, [the plaintiff] shall pay the expenses necessarily incurred by the [defendant], for trying the issue of damages from the time of the offer” (CPLR 3220 … ). Here, since the defendant’s offer of $950,000 exceeded the plaintiff’s award of $524,253.92 and the plaintiff rejected that offer, the court should have awarded the defendant its expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in trying the issue of damages from the date of its offer pursuant to CPLR 3220 … . Kirchoff-Consigli Constr. Mgt., LLC v Dharmakaya, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04468, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, INCLUDING AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT, WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (CCC’s) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because the supporting evidence, including an attorney affidavit, was not in admissible form:

The affirmation of CCC’s attorney was not based upon personal knowledge and, thus, was of no probative or evidentiary significance … . “The affidavit or affirmation of an attorney, even if he [or she] has no personal knowledge of the facts, may, of course, serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which do provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, e.g., documents, transcripts” … . Here, however, the submissions by CCC on the motion were not in admissible form … . The emails and letters were offered for the truth of their contents and, therefore, constituted hearsay … . CCC failed to establish that any exception to the hearsay rule applied … . Since CCC failed to submit admissible evidence or an affidavit by a person having knowledge of the facts, it failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212[b] …). United Specialty Ins. v Columbia Cas. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 04511, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

,

THE PROOF THE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WAS NOT REBUTTED BY THE DEFENDANT’S UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the proof that defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint was not rebutted by the defendant’s unsubstantiated allegations:

“At a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the burden of proving personal jurisdiction is upon the party asserting it, and that party must sustain that burden by a preponderance of the credible evidence” … .”In reviewing a determination made after a hearing, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of the hearing court, and this Court may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” … .

Here, viewing the evidence in its totality, the plaintiff met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process … . At the hearing, the process server testified to his independent recollection of his personal delivery of the papers to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s dwelling, explained why he recalled this particular delivery, and gave testimony about the mailing. Among the exhibits the plaintiff presented at the hearing was a photograph, with a date, time, and GPS coordinates, depicting where the process server delivered the papers. The defendant’s testimony verified that the person of suitable age and discretion, as named and described in the process server’s affidavit, was consistent with the name and description of one of his co-tenants, his father. Although the defendant testified that his father was out of the country at the time of delivery, the defendant’s testimony, which was unsubstantiated and, in critical respects, without a basis of personal knowledge, was insufficient to support the determination that he was not properly served. Sturrup v Scaria, 2020 NY Slip Op 04506, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

,

THE 90-DAY CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the 90-day statute of limitation in the contract applied and the breach of contract cause of action was therefore time-barred. The construction contract required an action to be brought within 90 days of the completion of construction:

… [An] “agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to commence an action is enforceable'” … . ” [T]he period of time within which an action must be brought . . . should be fair and reasonable, in view of the circumstances of each particular case. . . . The circumstances, not the time, must be the determining factor'” … . “Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced” … .

Here, the [defendant] demonstrated, prima facie, that the time within which to commence this action had expired inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to commence this action within 90 days after May 31, 2011, when construction was indisputably complete … . Stonewall Contr. Corp. v Long Is. Rail Rd. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 04505, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

, ,

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION PRECLUDED THIS CIVIL SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UTILITY AFTER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DETERMINED PLAINTIFF’S ELECTRICITY HAD BEEN PROPERLY CUT OFF BY THE UTILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD REPLACED THE METER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the doctrine of primary jurisdiction precluded plaintiff’s lawsuit against former officers of the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation. Plaintiff believed the digital encoder receiver transmitter (ERT) installed at his home by the utility to replace an analog meter emitted cancer-causing radiation. Plaintiff removed the ERT and replaced it with an analog meter. The utility considered the meter dangerous and cut off plaintiff’s electricity. Plaintiff complained to the Public Service Commission (PSC) which supported the utilities’ power cut-off and informed plaintiff of his appeal rights. Plaintiff did not appeal and started the instant civil suit:

… [W]e find that Supreme Court was correct in its interpretation of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a court has the discretion to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over a matter where an administrative agency also has jurisdiction, and the determination of the issues involved, under a regulatory scheme, depends upon the specialized knowledge and experience of the agency … . Here, the issues concern the particular meter used by Central Hudson, plaintiff’s removal and replacement of same, the safety concerns caused by his actions and the validity of the disconnection of his service. These matters fall under the doctrine and, thus, were appropriate for PSC determination. We also agree with Supreme Court’s assessment that the causes of action found in plaintiff’s complaint amount to little more than a rebranding of his PSC claim and were properly dismissed … .

… [W]e agree with Supreme Court’s determination that review of a PSC ruling is limited to a CPLR article 78 proceeding. “Supreme Court, in determining the motion for [summary judgment,] properly considered whether the . . . primary jurisdiction doctrine[] precluded the causes of action propounded by plaintiff[]” … , and that, in order to review the original ruling, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to bring an article 78 proceeding … . [Romine] v Laurito, 2020 NY Slip Op 04432, Third Dept 8-6-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW HIS OPPOSITION TO THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK HAD ORIGINALLY ALLEGED IT POSSESSED THE NOTE AND THEREFORE HAD STANDING TO FORECLOSE; SUBSEQUENTLY THE BANK SUBMITTED A LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to renew his opposition to the bank’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this foreclosure action. In support of its summary judgment motion the bank alleged it had standing based upon possession of the note. However, in support of the bank’s subsequent motion to confirm the referee’s report the bank submitted a lost note affidavit:

A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]), and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][3]).

Here, in support of his cross motion for leave to renew, the borrower had a reasonable justification for his failure to present the new facts in opposition to the original motion, since the plaintiff had previously—and unequivocally—represented that the original note was in Investors’ possession, and only later disclosed that the original note had in fact been lost, without providing any further details as to when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, and when the note was lost … .

Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the borrower’s cross motion for leave to renew and, upon renewal, denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the borrower, to strike his answer and counterclaims, and for an order of reference, based on unresolved issues of fact regarding the plaintiff’s standing … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v Barbery, 2020 NY Slip Op 04377, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

,

FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THE ENTIRE DEBT TIME-BARRED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED; IF SO, ONLY THOSE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS DUE WITHIN SIX YEARS OF THE START OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION ARE RECOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action on the entire debt was time-barred, but there was a question of fact whether the debt was de-accelerated such that the installment payments due during the six years prior to the commencement of the action were recoverable by the plaintiff bank (Chase):

… [T]he defendants demonstrated that the six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[4]) began to run on July 7, 2009, when Chase accelerated the mortgage debt and commenced the prior foreclosure action … . Since the plaintiff did not commence the instant foreclosure action until more than six years later, on January 28, 2016, the defendants sustained their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the action was untimely … .

… [T]he plaintiff tendered evidence that, in May 2015, it sent letters to each of the defendants that purported to de-accelerate the entire debt … . However, such evidence is sufficient only to raise a question of fact as to whether those causes of action that sought unpaid installments which accrued within the six-year period of limitations preceding the commencement of this action (see CPLR 213[4] …) are barred by the statute of limitations due to this alleged de-acceleration by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff failed to tender any evidence to rebut the defendants’ showing that the statute of limitations bars the causes of action relating to unpaid mortgage installments which accrued on or before January 27, 2010, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss those causes of action. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Miele, 2020 NY Slip Op 04422, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

, ,

THE SELLER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO EXERCISE AN OPTION IN THE RESTRICTED REMEDIES CLAUSE OF THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT BECAUSE THE BUYER NEVER DEMANDED SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, affirming Supreme Court and noting that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action may be brought at any time, determined the motion to dismiss this action for specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement was properly granted. The buyer argued it was entitled to specific performance because the seller was required to exercise one of the remedies described in the restricted remedies clause of the purchase agreement. The court disagreed and held the buyer never in fact demanded specific performance. Rather, the buyer indicated it would not close unless the seller remedied a tax misclassification and lowered the purchase price:

Supreme Court properly considered the seller’s post note of issue CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action because it can be made at any time (CPLR 3211[e]). Thus, CPLR 3212(a)’s requirement of demonstrating good cause for the delay does not apply … . * * *

… .[T]he buyer maintains that Supreme Court erred in dismissing that claim by misreading Mehlman v 592-600 Union Ave. Corp. (46 AD3d 338 [1st Dept 2007]) in applying the contract’s restricted remedy clause against it. That clause expressly and strictly limited the buyer to two remedies in the event the seller was unable to convey title to the premises pursuant to the terms of the contract: (i) terminate the contract and receive its down payment or (ii) consummate the transaction with a $25,000 credit to remedy any title issue. The buyer argues that our holdings in Mehlman and 101123 LLC v Solis Realty LLC (23 AD3d 107 [1st Dept 2005]) obligate the seller to concede the title defect and demand that the buyer exercise one of the options set forth in the restricted remedies clause at the closing, and that the seller’s failure to satisfy this obligation enables the buyer to maintain its specific performance claim. * * *

…  [A] seller unable to convey clear title for reasons contemplated in the parties’ contract is entitled to invoke the restricted remedies clause in response to a buyer’s demand for specific performance of the parties’ contractual terms. Here, the buyer’s allegations unmistakably demonstrate that it did not demand specific performance from the seller to convey title as alleged in the complaint, namely, by conveying title in accordance with the seller’s contractual representation that there were no negative tax issues associated with the premises. Instead, the buyer alleged in its complaint that it was ready, willing and able to close provided that the seller, inter alia, corrected the tax misclassification and reduced the purchase price to address the tax liabilities arising from the misclassification. In fact, the allegations underlying the claim demonstrate the complete absence of a demand for specific performance of the parties’ contract. Rather, according to those allegations, the buyer’s demand would result only if the seller did not comply with the buyer’s condition to close. These allegations, as a matter of law, demonstrate that the seller was not obligated to invoke the restricted remedies clause. Thus, under these circumstances, the buyer is precluded from seeking from the seller specific performance of their contract. M&E 73-75, LLC v 57 Fusion LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 04372, First Dept 7-30-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice and wrongful death causes of action on behalf of decedent should not have been dismissed as time-barred:

The plaintiff’s decedent died due to complications related to cancer on August 29, 2015. On May 26, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for wrongful death and medical malpractice against, among others, the defendants Forest Hills Hospital (hereinafter FHH) and Sergio Martinez, a physician (hereinafter together the defendants). As is relevant to these appeals, the complaint alleged negligent acts and omissions by the defendants related to the decedent’s hospitalization at FHH from July 30, 2013, to August 1, 2013. After joinder of issue, Martinez and FHH separately moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss, as time-barred, so much of the complaint as was based upon alleged acts of malpractice committed before November 26, 2013, insofar as asserted against each of them. … Supreme Court granted the defendants’ separate motions. …

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the statute of limitations barred causes of action to recover damages for medical malpractice that accrued prior to November 26, 2013 (i.e., 2½ years before the date the action was commenced), rather than February 28, 2013 (i.e., 2½ years before the date of the decedent’s death) (see EPTL 5-4.1 …). Since, at the time of his death, the decedent had a valid cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice based upon acts or omissions occurring on or after February 28, 2013, and since the wrongful death cause of action was commenced within two years of the date of his death, the wrongful death cause of action was timely commenced … . Accordingly, any causes of action to recover damages for medical malpractice that accrued on or after February 28, 2013 (i.e., within 2½ years of the decedent’s death), including the decedent’s July 2013 hospitalization, were timely. Further, the plaintiff then had one year from the decedent’s death to assert a cause of action alleging conscious pain and suffering (see CPLR 210[a]; …). Perez v Baez, 2020 NY Slip Op 04329, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

HEARSAY DID NOT PROVE BANK HAD STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence submitted by plaintiff bank to establish standing in this foreclosure action was inadmissible hearsay:

“… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a foreclosure specialist for Seterus, Inc. (hereinafter Seterus), which purports to be a subservicer for the Federal National Mortgage Association as assignee of the plaintiff as assignee of OneWest. The affidavit constitutes inadmissible hearsay, as the foreclosure specialist did not attest that he had personal knowledge of OneWest’s business practices and procedures … , or that any records provided by OneWest were incorporated into Seterus’s own records … , and also did not submit any documents to show that OneWest possessed the note at the time of the commencement of this action (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Since the foreclosure specialist also failed to establish a foundation to show that he had personal knowledge as to whether OneWest possessed the note prior to commencement of the action (see CPLR 3212[b] …), the plaintiff failed to establish its standing. The documents attached to the affirmation of counsel for the plaintiff are inadmissible hearsay as counsel failed to establish a foundation for admission of such documents as business records and the foreclosure specialist’s affidavit does not reference the records attached to counsel’s affirmation … . Moreover, even if a proper foundation for the admissibility of the business records had been established, the submitted documents do not show that OneWest had ownership of and the right to enforce the note at the time of the commencement of the action … . The plaintiff also failed to show OneWest’s standing based upon a purported written assignment of the mortgage from MERS [Mortgage Electronic Registration system] to OneWest, as the plaintiff did not demonstrate that MERS had the authority to assign the note …”. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v Schacker, 2020 NY Slip Op 04313, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

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