You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a defendant in this foreclosure action brought by a foreign corporation did not demonstrate the corporation was doing business in New York without authorization. Therefore defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on that ground should not have been granted:

“Business Corporation Law § 1312(a) constitutes a bar to the maintenance of an action by a foreign corporation found to be doing business in New York without . . . the required authorization to do business there” … . “The purpose of that section is to regulate foreign corporations which are doing business’ within the State, not . . . to enable the avoidance of contractual obligations” … . “[T]he party relying upon this statutory barrier bears the burden of proving that the corporation’s business activities in New York were not just casual or occasional, but so systematic and regular as to manifest continuity of activity in the jurisdiction”… . “[A]bsent proof establishing that the [subject corporation] is doing business in New York, it is presumed that [it] is doing business in [the] State of incorporation, and not in New York” … .

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that “[the appellant] conducted continuous activities in [New York] essential to its corporate business” … . Therefore, “the presumption that [the appellant] does business, not in New York but in its State of incorporation has not been overcome” … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Didato, 2020 NY Slip Op 03903, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT ABSENT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the referee’s report should not have been confirmed in the absence of a hearing on notice to the property owner, TEP:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have confirmed the referee’s report in the absence of a hearing on notice to TEP (see CPLR 4313 …). Although the notice accompanying the plaintiff’s proposed referee’s oath notified TEP of the due date for the submission of documents to the referee, it did not indicate that the submission of such papers would be in lieu of a hearing … . Further, the Supreme Court erred in rejecting TEP’s contention, raised in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, that ” [t]he referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record inasmuch as the computation was premised upon unproduced business records'” … . Moreover, the referee’s report also failed to identify any documents or other sources upon which the referee based her finding that the mortgaged premises should be sold in one parcel … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Tigani, 2020 NY Slip Op 03901, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

,

THE COURT’S ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA FOR A 90-DAY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to active status and to extend the time to serve and file a note of issue should have been granted. Supreme Court, after a compliance conference, directed plaintiffs to file a note of issue by August 4, 2016, which was 21 days from the date of the compliance conference order. The compliance order therefore did not meet the statutory criteria for a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216:

The compliance conference order dated July 14, 2016, did not constitute a valid 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 because it directed the plaintiffs to file a note of issue within 21 days, rather than 90 days, of the date of the order … . Furthermore, the compliance conference order failed to set forth any specific conduct constituting neglect by the plaintiffs in proceeding with the litigation (see CPLR 3216[b][3] …). In addition, the Supreme Court failed to give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 … .

Since the statutory preconditions to dismissal were not met, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 … .

Contrary to the respondents’ contention, this action could not have properly been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3126, since there was no motion requesting this relief … . Christiano v Heatherwood House at Holbrook II, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03891, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT ALLOWED MOTHER TO TESTIFY BY TELEPHONE WITHOUT WARNING HER A NOTARY SHOULD BE PRESENT SO SHE COULD BE SWORN AND THEN, SUA SPONTE, REJECTED MOTHER’S TESTIMONY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SWORN; NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court in this child support violation proceeding, determined that mother’s testimony by telephone should not have been rejected, sua sponte, because it was unsworn. Family Court allowed mother to testify and mother, who was facing incarceration for the child-support violation, had not been warned to have a notary present so her testimony could be sworn:

In noting the lack of a notary present with the mother to swear her in, Family Court correctly identified a critical issue about to unfold at the hearing, but then took no timely corrective action to address the issue, permitted the unsworn questioning to occur and then, in its written decision, found fault with the very unsworn testimony methodology that it had permitted to occur at the hearing. The correct course of action would have been for the court to explain up front that, if the mother wished to testify, she would have to do so under oath and then administer the oath itself if the mother had not made other suitable arrangements. Given that the mother was facing a potential period of incarceration of up to six months in the event that Family Court determined that her failure to pay child support was willful (see Family Ct. Act § 454 [3] [a]), the mother’s testimony was essential to the court’s determination as to whether she had had the ability to pay or willfully disobeyed the prior support order. Thus, having permitted the mother to give unsworn testimony telephonically, it was error for Family Court to thereafter sua sponte rule, nearly 1½ months after the hearing, that it would not credit the mother’s testimony given that it was not sworn.  Matter of Burnett v Andrews-Dyke, 2020 NY Slip Op 03838, Third Dept 7-9-20

 

, , ,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SERVED VALID SUBPOENAS ON THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY COMPANIES PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 352 (MARTIN ACT) IN A FRAUD INVESTIGATION; ONCE THE MOTIONS TO VACATE OR MODIFY THE EX PARTE ORDER RE: THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENAS WAS DETERMINED, THE COURT NO LONGER HAD ANY AUTHORITY OVER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S INVESTIGATION; THEREFORE THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY COMPANIES’ SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE SUPREME COURT OR THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined that the Attorney General (petitioner) properly served subpoenas on the virtual currency companies (respondents) pursuant to General Business Law (GBL) 352 (Martin Act) in a fraud investigation. The subpoenas were attacked on several grounds, all of which were rejected: (1) subject matter jurisdiction (arguing the virtual currency is not a commodity or a security): (2) long-arm jurisdiction (arguing insufficient contacts with New York); (3) ex parte order was not certified as required by GBL 352 (court found this a technical not jurisdictional defect). But before addressing the issues raised on appeal, the Second Department held that the court did not have statutory authority under the GBL to address the respondents’ motion to dismiss (which was the basis of the appeal). Under the GBL, once the motions to vacate or modify the subpoenas were determined, the court has no authority over the Attorney General’s investigation:

… [U]nder the Martin Act’s statutory scheme, once Supreme Court has issued an order responding to a GBL 354 application, it has no further role in the Attorney General’s investigation, except to rule on a motion by either party to vacate or modify the order, as respondents made here. Accordingly, once the court issued the order authorized by GBL 354 on April 24, 2019, and modified it by order dated May 16, 2019, the proceeding before it was concluded and there was no action or proceeding for Supreme Court to “dismiss” on May 21, 2019 when respondents filed their motion that resulted in the order now before the court. All that remained was the Attorney General’s ongoing investigation, in which, by statute, the courts have no further role at this stage. Indeed, neither party cites to, and this Court is unaware of, any prior case in which the subject of a Martin Act investigation has moved to “dismiss” an application by the Attorney General for an order pursuant to GBL 354. Matter of James v iFinex Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03880, First Dept 7-9-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A FRYE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING IS AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY, THE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; NO FOUNDATION WAS LAID FOR THE ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this rear-end collision traffic accident case should have been granted. Although Supreme Court was correct in finding that a Frye hearing was not necessary because biomechanical engineering is an accepted scientific theory, no proper foundation was laid for the defense expert’s (Toosi’s) testimony:

The court properly relied upon a decision of this Court and a decision of the Appellate Term, First Department, in determining that biomechanical engineering is a scientific theory accepted in the field … . …

Separate and distinct from the Frye inquiry is the ” admissibility question applied to all evidence—whether there is a proper foundation—to determine whether the accepted methods were appropriately employed in a particular case'” … . “The question is whether the expert’s opinion sufficiently relates to existing data or is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish that Toosi’s opinions related to existing data and were the result of properly applied accepted methodology … . Thus, Toosi’s testimony should have been precluded. Guerra v Ditta, 2020 NY Slip Op 03771, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE ITS DEFAULT BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS INCORRECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate its default because it was never served with the summons and complaint should have been granted. The defendant demonstrated the address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect and the failure to update the address was not a deliberate attempt to avoid service:

” CPLR 317 provides, generally, that a defendant is entitled to vacatur of a default judgment if it is established that he [or she] did not receive personal notice of the summons in time to defend and that he [or she] has a meritorious defense'”… . “It is also well established that service on a corporation through delivery of process to the Secretary of State is not personal delivery’ to the corporation or to an agent designated under CPLR 318” … . While it is not necessary for a defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 317 to show a reasonable excuse for its delay … , a defendant is not entitled to relief under that statute where its failure to receive notice of the summons “was a result of a deliberate attempt to avoid such notice” … .

Here, the defendant established its entitlement to relief from its default under CPLR 317 by demonstrating that the address on file with the Secretary of State at the time the summons and complaint were served was incorrect, and that it did not receive actual notice of the summons and complaint in time to defend itself against this action … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, an order dated August 21, 2013, issued in connection with the 2009 action, which was mailed to the defendant at the subject property, did not place the defendant on notice that the address on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect  … . In addition, the evidence does not suggest that the defendant’s failure to update its address with the Secretary of State constituted a deliberate attempt to avoid service of process … . Moreover, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . Golden Eagle Capital Corp. v Paramount Mgt. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03770, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

, ,

TENANT’S MOTION TO REMOVE AN EVICTION PROCEEDING FROM CIVIL COURT AND CONSOLIDATE IT WITH A BREACH-OF-LEASE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; LEASE PROVISIONS PRECLUDED THE COUNTERCLAIMS AND EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDING, BUT THAT RELIEF IS AVAILABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s (tenant’s) motion pursuant to CPLR 602(b) to remove a summary proceeding (eviction proceeding) from Civil Court and consolidate it with the breach-of-lease proceeding in Supreme Court should have been granted:

On January 1, 2015, the plaintiff executed a five-year commercial lease with the defendant for a condominium unit in a building in Brooklyn for the purpose of operating a medical practice on the premises. In May 2017, the defendant commenced a summary proceeding against the plaintiff in the Civil Court, Kings County, to recover possession of the premises and unpaid rent. In October 2017, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant in the Supreme Court, Kings County, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of the lease. The plaintiff also moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 602(b) to remove the summary proceeding from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court and to consolidate it with the instant action. … Although the Civil Court is the preferred forum for the resolution of landlord-tenant disputes when the tenant may obtain full relief in a summary proceeding … , here, the lease provisions preclude the plaintiff from asserting counterclaims in the summary proceeding and the equitable relief sought by the plaintiff in the Supreme Court is unavailable to it in the summary proceeding in Civil Court … . Barkagan v S&L Star Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03759, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 AND 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff loan services company (Aurora/Nationstar) did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 13O4 and 1306. Therefore, Aurora’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The court, noting that “lack of notice’ may be raised at any time, explained defendant did not waive the “lack of notice” defense because defendant denied the plaintiff’s complaint-allegations of compliance and raised the issue in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Second Department further found defendant was not entitled to summary judgment because “lack of notice” was not demonstrated as a matter of law. The decision provides a valuable explanation of the proof requirements for compliance with RPAPL 1304 and 1306:

In support of its motions, Aurora submitted the affidavit of Jerrell Menyweather, a document execution specialist employed by Nationstar, along with a copy of a 90-day notice addressed to the defendant, and a proof of filing statement pursuant to RPAPL 1306 from the New York State Banking Department. Although Menyweather stated in the affidavit that the RPAPL notices were sent to the defendant at her last known address and the subject property, Menyweather did not have personal knowledge of the mailing, and Aurora failed to provide any documents to prove that the notices were actually mailed … . Aurora also failed to submit a copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notices were sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute … . Furthermore, Menyweather did not aver that he was familiar with Aurora’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Matles, 2020 NY Slip Op 03793, 7-8-20

 

, , ,

ARBITRATOR’S DECISION FINDING CLAIMANT WAS PROPERLY DISCHARGED FOR MISCONDUCT ENTITLED TO COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined the arbitration decision pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement should have been given collateral estoppel effect by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the unemployment insurance proceeding. The arbitrator found that the claimant engaged in misconduct warranting discharge. The arbitrator’s decision was issued prior to the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ found claimant did not engage in misconduct and was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Although “the Board is not bound by arbitration decisions regarding [a] claimant’s discharge issued subsequent to the time the Board rendered its decision”… , the Board was informed of the arbitration decision prior to its decision. As such, the factual findings of the arbitrator should have been accorded collateral estoppel effect in relation to the final unemployment insurance decision, so long as the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the misconduct issue at the arbitration hearing … . The fact that the arbitration decision was issued after the conclusion of the unemployment insurance hearing does not preclude its consideration for collateral estoppel purposes, as “the final factfinder in the administrative process is the Board, not the ALJ” … . As the Board indicated that the arbitrator’s decision was not part of the record before it — despite that decision being the focus of, and a copy of it annexed to, the employer’s administrative appeal — the matter must be remitted in order for the employer to submit the arbitration decision into the record and to provide an opportunity for claimant and the employer to provide additional evidence and testimony regarding the nature of the arbitration hearing … . Matter of Bruce (Town of N. Hempstead–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 03705, Third Dept 7-2-20

 

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