You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS’ INSURER OBTAINED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (BY DEFAULT) THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE, UNDER EITHER CLAIM OR ISSUE PRECLUSION, PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, after a comprehensive analysis of res judicata and collateral estoppel, refusing to follow the Second Department, determined a default judgment in a declaratory judgment action brought against plaintiff by defendant driver/owner’s insurer (Nationwide) did not preclude plaintiff’s subsequent personal injury action against defendants. Plaintiff alleged he was walking his motorcycle across a street when he was struct by defendants’ vehicle. Nationwide brought the declaratory judgment action to obtain a ruling it was not obligated to pay no-fault benefits to plaintiff and plaintiff did not appear in that action:

Claim preclusion prevents relitigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions that either were raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding … . As the Court of Appeals has stressed, this “identity” requirement is a “linchpin of res judicata,” which applies “only when a claim between the parties has been previously brought to a final conclusion'” … . Stated differently, the “doctrine of res judicata only bars additional actions between the same parties on the same claims based upon the same harm” … . …

Issue preclusion prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action … . Under issue preclusion, the prior judgment conclusively resolves an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action … . There is a limit to the reach of issue preclusion, however. In accordance with due process, it can be asserted only against a party to the first lawsuit, or one in privity with a party … .

… .”An issue is not actually litigated” for collateral estoppel purposes “if, for example, there has been a default” … . …

Claim preclusion cannot apply here, because plaintiff and defendants are litigating a claim against each other for the first time. * * * Defendants’ rights to be defended and indemnified by Nationwide remained intact regardless of the outcome of the no-fault benefits dispute. Rojas v Romanoff, 2020 NY Slip Op 04237, First Dept 7-23-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND THE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE GRANTED, THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON COVENIENS GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the failure to serve defendant (Bryan) should have been denied and plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve defendants (Bryan and Carroll) should have been granted. However the action was properly dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds:

… [T]he plaintiff promptly sought an extension after Bryan challenged the court’s jurisdiction, the respective insurance carriers for Bryan and Carroll had actual notice of this action within 120 days of its commencement, there was evidence of a potentially meritorious cause of action, and there was no demonstrable prejudice to Bryan and Carroll … . Accordingly, that branch of the respondents’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Bryan must be denied, and the plaintiff’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve both Bryan and Carroll must be granted.

However, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the respondents’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 327(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of forum non conveniens. In granting that branch of the respondents’ motion, the court properly considered all the relevant factors … , including that the plaintiff and the respondents are residents of New Jersey, Carroll was also a resident of New Jersey at the time of the accident, Bryan’s insurance policy was issued in New Jersey, and both vehicles involved in the accident were registered in New Jersey … . The fact that the accident occurred in New York is insufficient by itself to provide the substantial nexus required to warrant the retention of jurisdiction in the State of New York … . Considering all of the relevant factors, including the fact that the plaintiff primarily received medical treatment for her alleged injuries in New Jersey, we find no basis to disturb the court’s determination to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against the respondents on forum non conveniens grounds … . DelGrosso v Carroll, 2020 NY Slip Op 04148, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT HOME OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED IN PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A NOTICE WITNESS WHO WAS NOT DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant home owner’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 200 action should have been granted. Defendant was not home when plaintiff fell through an open hole in the deck while removing a window. The defendant demonstrated he did not have any control over the manner of plaintiff’s work and did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Supreme Court should not have considered the affidavit of a nonparty who was not previously disclosed as a witness who had actual notice of the condition.

… [T]he defendant established, prima facie, that he did not exercise supervision or control over the performance of the work giving rise to the accident … . Further, to the extent that the accident could be viewed as arising from a dangerous or defective premises condition at the work site, the defendant established, prima facie, that he did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to consider the affidavit of a nonparty witness submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendant’s motion. In his discovery demands, the defendant sought disclosure of, inter alia, the name of any witness who had actual notice of the alleged condition, or the nature and duration of such condition. The nonparty witness was not disclosed in the plaintiffs’ discovery responses, the plaintiffs failed to offer an excuse for their failure to do so, and nothing that transpired during discovery would have alerted the defendant of the potential significance of the nonparty’s testimony … . Casilari v Condon, 2020 NY Slip Op 04146, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

,

THE ACTION ALLEGING DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONDOMINIUM ACCRUED WHEN THE WORK WAS COMPLETED, I.E., WHEN THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS ISSUED; THE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the action alleging defective construction of a condominium was time-barred. The action accrued the work was completed, i.e., when the certificate of occupancy was issued:

A claim for damages arising from defective construction accrues on the date of completion of the work … . “This rule applies no matter how a claim is characterized in the complaint’ because all liability’ for defective construction has its genesis in the contractual relationship of the parties'” … . Here, the corporate defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the first through third and fifth through seventh causes of action insofar as asserted against them. The corporate defendants established that the causes of action accrued on October 5, 2007, the date the certificate of occupancy was issued … , and that this action was not commenced until June 2016, more than eight years later, at which time the applicable statutes of limitations had expired. Board of Mgrs. of the 23-23 Condominium v 210th Place Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 04143, Second Deptp 7-22-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (US Bank’s) motion to dismiss the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) should not have been granted in this foreclosure action. Plaintiff had moved for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default but then withdrew the motion:

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” “It is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . “As long as the plaintiff has initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year of the default, there is no basis for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . Moreover, ” the withdrawal of the plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference [does] not demonstrate that the plaintiff failed to initiate proceedings for entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of US Bank’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it as abandoned, because the plaintiff moved for an order of reference within one year of US Bank’s default … . “In such cases, the complaint should not be dismissed, even if, as here, the plaintiff’s motion is later withdrawn'” … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Wessen, 2020 NY Slip Op 04141, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT TO ADD AN APPARENTLY MISNAMED PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the summons and complaint to add an apparently misnamed party after the statute of limitations had run should not have been granted:

On March 27, 2014, the plaintiff allegedly was injured while boarding a ski lift at Hunter Mountain in Hunter. On March 23, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, Hunter Mountain and Hunter Mountain Resort, LLC, to recover damages for personal injuries. After the defendants failed to appear or answer the complaint, a default judgment dated April 18, 2018, was entered against the defendants. By notice of motion dated September 15, 2018, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 305(c) and 3025(b) for leave to amend the summons, complaint, and caption to name Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc., doing business as Hunter Mountain (hereinafter HMSB), as a defendant instead of the named defendant Hunter Mountain. …

Relief pursuant to CPLR 305(c) may be granted only where there is evidence that the correct defendant was served, albeit misnamed in the original process, and the correct defendant would not be prejudiced by the granting of the amendment … . While CPLR 305(c) may be used to cure a misnomer in the description of a party defendant, it cannot be used after the expiration of the statute of limitations as a device to add or substitute an entirely new defendant who was not properly served … .

… There is no evidence that HMSB and Hunter Mountain are one and the same entity … . … [T]he plaintiff failed to establish that he properly served HMSB or that the Supreme Court obtained jurisdiction over it … .

… [T]he plaintiff was not entitled to relief pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the summons, complaint, and caption to add HMSB as a defendant, since he did not provide a copy of his proposed amended summons and complaint, … . The proposed amendments are patently devoid of merit because the statute of limitations bars any claim against HMSB, a new party to this action … , and the plaintiff failed to establish that the relation-back doctrine pursuant to CPLR 203(f) applied … . Nossov v Hunter Mtn., 2020 NY Slip Op 04175, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF PRESENTED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A NEIGHBOR FOR TRESPASS, PRIVATE NUISANCE, AND VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW; THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in this dispute between neighbors should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the neighbor repeatedly damaged and defaced plaintiff’s property and installed a surveillance camera aimed at plaintiff’s property. The Fourth Department went through the elements required for issuance of a preliminary injunction and described the proof offered in support of the trespass, private nuisance and Civil Rights Law causes of action:

Plaintiff’s supplemental affidavit and photographs submitted in support of the motion demonstrate that Nichols repeatedly drove across her lawn and blew snow with his snowblower onto the side of plaintiff’s house, allegedly causing damage to her awning and fence. Both events were intentional invasions of plaintiff’s interest in the exclusive possession of her land. Furthermore, although “an action for trespass over the lands of one property owner may not be maintained where the purported trespasser has acquired an easement of way over the land in question” … , plaintiff established that the acts allegedly committed by Nichols on the easement exceeded the scope of the easement and did not constitute a reasonable use of his interest in the easement … . Thus, plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her trespass claim. …

The evidence submitted by plaintiff established that Nichols drove across plaintiff’s lawn, used a snowblower to blow snow onto her house, tampered with and removed her property markers, parked his vehicle so as to obstruct plaintiff’s driveway, drove on the freshly paved driveway and left tire tracks in the asphalt, and repeatedly painted a white line across the driveway. That conduct exceeds the scope of the easement and may fairly be characterized as a substantial interference with plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of her property. Thus, plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her private nuisance claim.

Plaintiff’s affidavit and video evidence also submitted on the motion demonstrate that Nichols threatened to install a “150-foot night vision camera” in his backyard and to point it directly into plaintiff’s backyard and at her living room. As Nichols installed the surveillance camera, he stated to plaintiff, “It’s gonna look right in your fucking living room! . . . You’re on camera bitch! . . . Smile for the camera bitch!” Thus, plaintiff also demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim under Civil Rights Law § 52-a. Cangemi v Yeager, 2020 NY Slip Op 04023, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

 

, ,

AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE GROUND FOR THE INITIAL AGENCY DECISION; THE GROUNDS FOR A SUBSEQUENT DECISION ISSUED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS COMMENCED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR THE METADATA OF THE DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE METADATA WAS NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ IN THE FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 review must be confined to the ground asserted in the agency’s initial FOIL decision and could not consider the grounds asserted in the agency’s subsequent decision issued after petitioner brought the Article 78 proceeding. The ground for the initial decision had been abandoned in the second decision. The court noted that the petitioner’s demand for the metadata of the disclosed documents must be denied because metadata was not “reasonably described” in the FOIL request:

This proceeding is not in the nature of mandamus to compel. Instead, the standard of review is whether the denial of the FOIL request was “affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803[3] … ), for which judicial review is “limited to the grounds invoked by the agency” in its determination … . Since respondents abandoned the exemption raised in their initial decision, they cannot meet their burden to “establish[] that the . . . documents qualif[y] for the exemption” … . Further, as respondents “did not make any contemporaneous claim that the requested materials” fit the newly raised exemptions, “to allow [them] to do so now would be contrary to [Court of Appeals] precedent, as well as to the spirit and purpose of FOIL” … . …

An agency is only required to produce “a record reasonably described” (Public Officers Law § 89[3][a]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the FOIL request for “complete copies” of communications and documents cannot fairly be read to have implicitly requested metadata associated with those copies. Matter of Barry v O’Neill, 2020 NY Slip Op 04007, First Dept 7-16-20

 

,

CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE LANDOWNER FOR A SLIP AND FALL IN THE LESSEE’S SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE LANDOWNER HAD SOME REPAIR RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE LEASE; ALTHOUGH THE ORIGINAL SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT DESCRIBED THE WRONG PROPERTY ADDRESS, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, SERVED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WAS TIMELY UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the landowner in this slip and fall case should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell in the parking lot of a shopping center. Plaintiff sued the landowner three days before the statute of limitations expired. The property address of the shopping center was wrong on the original summons and complaint. A couple of months later plaintiff served a supplemental summons and amended complaint which corrected the address and added defendants. The cause of action against the landowner should not have been dismissed because the lease gave the property owner some authority over keeping the premises safe and because the relation-back theory rendered the amended complaint timely. The causes of action against the added defendants were deemed time-barred because the relation-back doctrine did not apply to them:

A motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law … . Here, the defendants’ own affidavits do not constitute documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … , and the ground lease between them and Stavan, Inc., failed to utterly refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations. “Generally, a landowner owes a duty of care to maintain his or her property in a reasonably safe condition” … . Although “a landowner who has transferred possession and control is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property” … , and, here, the lease required the lessee to “keep [the subject property] in good repair” and “make or cause to be made any and all repairs both inside and outside,” the lease also gave the defendants the right to reenter the subject property and “perform and do such acts and things, and make such payments and incur such expenses as may be reasonably necessary to make . . . repairs to comply with the requirements” under the lease. Thus, the lease failed to conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law … . …

“The linchpin’ of the relation-back doctrine is whether the new defendant had notice within the applicable limitations period” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the relation-back doctrine applied inasmuch as she did not establish that the additional defendants had knowledge of the claim or occurrence within the applicable limitations period, and that her failure to name them as defendants in the original complaint was due to a mistake on her part … . Pirozzi v Garvin, 2020 NY Slip Op 03932, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH MOTHER WAS GENERALLY AWARE FATHER HAD MOVED TO DELAWARE, FATHER DID NOT SPECIFY AN AGENT FOR SERVICE AS REQUIRED BY THE FAMILY COURT ACT; THEREFORE SERVICE OF MOTHER’S OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER AT FATHER’S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order should not have been rejected on the ground father was not properly served. The papers were served at father’s prior address in Brooklyn. Although mother was aware father may live in Delaware from representation made to the court, father did not specify an agent for service as required by Family Court Act. Therefore service at father’s last known address was proper:

“Family Court Act § 439(e) provides, in pertinent part, that [a] party filing objections shall serve a copy of such objections upon the opposing party,’ and that [p]roof of service upon the opposing party shall be filed with the [Family Court] at the time of filing of objections and any rebuttal'” … . Here, the mother served her objections upon the father at an address in Brooklyn, which was the same address she listed for the father in her petition. The court rejected the proof of service because, inter alia, the court file reflected a Delaware address for the father. While the mother was generally aware that the father represented to the court that his address was in Delaware, there was no evidence in the record that the address was ever disclosed to the mother. Moreover, following the mailing of the original summons to the father’s Brooklyn address, he filed an Address Confidentiality Affidavit. In his Address Confidentiality Affidavit, the father failed to specify an agent for service, and there was no evidence that the mother ever received notice of an agent for service for the father as required by Family Court Act § 154-b(2)(c). Under these circumstances, the mother had insufficient notice of the father’s purported new address in Delaware and lacked notice of an agent for service for the father. Therefore, service upon the father at the address last known to the mother was proper (see CPLR 2103[b][2] …). Matter of Deyanira P. v Rodolfo P.-B., 2020 NY Slip Op 03918, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

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