You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION ON A GROUND (STANDING) NOT RAISED BY A PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed causes of action for lack of standing when that issue was not raised by the parties:

We thus conclude that the court erred in sua sponte reaching the issue of standing with respect to the second and third causes of action … . Standing “is an aspect of justiciability which, when challenged, must be considered at the outset of any litigation” … . Inasmuch as the … respondents’ cross motion with respect to the second and third causes of action was not based on petitioners’ alleged lack of standing, there was no basis for the court to reach that issue.  Matter of Barbeau v Village of LeRoy, 2020 NY Slip Op 01732, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

TEACHER’S LAWSUIT AGAINST STUDENTS ALLEGED INTENTIONAL, NOT NEGLIGENT, CONDUCT AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-teacher’s suit against two students alleged intentional conduct (battery), not negligent conduct, and was therefore time-barred. Plaintiff was pushed into a locker by the students who were fighting each other. Although the students did not intend to touch the teacher, the doctrine of transferred intent applied:

Defendant met her initial burden by establishing that plaintiff was injured as a result of intentional conduct that constituted a battery and not negligent conduct … . “A valid claim for battery exists where a person intentionally touches another without that person’s consent” … . ” The intent required for battery is intent to cause a bodily contact that a reasonable person would find offensive’; there is no requirement that the contact be intended to cause harm’ ” … . The deposition testimony of plaintiff and defendants submitted in support of the motion established that defendants intentionally caused offensive bodily contact with each other by engaging in a physical fight … . Although defendants did not intend to make physical contact with or to injure plaintiff, the contact that resulted in plaintiff’s injuries was nevertheless intentional under the doctrine of “transferred intent” … . …

Defendant thus established that this action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to intentional torts … .  Kessel v Adams, 2020 NY Slip Op 01758, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

WHERE THERE IS A DISCREPANCY THE ORDER MUST BE CONFORMED WITH THE DECISION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted a discrepancy between the decision and the order. Therefore the order was conformed to the decision:

… [W]e note that, in its bench decision, Family Court determined that the child ,,, was derivatively neglected. Inasmuch as there is a conflict between the decision and the order in appeal No. 1, that order must be conformed to the decision (… see generally CPLR 5019 [a]). We therefore modify the order … by vacating that part of the order determining that the child was derivatively abused and substituting therefor a determination that the child was derivatively neglected. Matter of Aaren F. (Amber S.), 2020 NY Slip Op 01739, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, , , , ,

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AMOUNTED TO AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE, NOT AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION; SUPREME COURT’S DIRECTIVES TO THE TOWN ENCROACHED UPON THE TOWN’S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the correspondence between the property owner (PCP) and the town concerning proposed construction created an agreement to agree, not an enforceable settlement agreement allowing construction; and (2), Supreme Court’s directing what the town could and could not consider with respect to the construction project encroached upon the town’s administrative authority:

… [T]he letters that the court found to have memorialized the settlement agreement did not contain all the material terms of the settlement and constituted no more than an agreement to agree … . [The town] stated therein only that it was “now in a position to agree to a settlement of the mass and scale issues,” but that first it would “need to receive, review and approve all of the items that it normally reviews in connection with any application it receives.” Any agreement was further conditioned on [the town’s] receipt of additional documentation from PCP, including “an accurate, to-scale site plan” and further roof specifications … .

We further conclude that, in the absence of an enforceable settlement agreement, the court’s hearing on the issues of mass and scale, subsequent decision rendering findings of fact related to PCP’s new application for a certificate of approval, and remittal to [the town] for consideration of that application with specific directives regarding what [the town] could and could not consider were impermissible intrusions into respondents’ administrative domain … . Matter of Pittsford Canalside Props., LLC v Village of Pittsford Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2020 NY Slip Op 01812, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, ,

LABOR LAW 198-b, WHICH PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER’S COLLECTING KICKBACKS FROM AN EMPLOYEE, DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Labor Law 198-b, which essentially prohibits an employer from collecting kickbacks from and employee, did not create a private right of action:

Plaintiff, a former teacher at defendant Utica Academy of Science Charter School (UASCS), commenced this action seeking to recover damages based upon allegations that there in which plaintiff was required to provide donations to [defendant] High Way in the form of illegal kickbacks of his salary under threat of demotion or termination. In his third cause of action, plaintiff alleged that defendants’ conduct violated Labor Law § 198-b, and plaintiff sought damages arising from that violation pursuant to Labor Law § 198. …

Although we offer no opinion with respect to whether other provisions within article 6 of the Labor Law afford private rights of action, we agree with High Way that the legislature did not intend to create a private right of action for violations of Labor Law § 198-b … , inasmuch as ” [t]he [l]egislature specifically considered and expressly provided for enforcement mechanisms’ in the statute itself” … . Indeed, by its express terms, a violation of section 198-b constitutes a misdemeanor offense … . Konkur v Utica Academy of Science Charter Sch., 2020 NY Slip Op 01827, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

DEFENDANT’S PARTICIPATION IN A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant in this foreclosure action did not waive his right to seek dismissal of the complaint by participating in a settlement conference. The plaintiff bank had abandoned the action:

CPLR 3215(c) states that “if [a] plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned…upon its own initiative or on motion.” The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not discretionary, and a claim for which a default judgment is not sought within the requisite one-year period will be deemed abandoned … . Notwithstanding, a claim will not be deemed abandoned if the party seeking a default judgment provides sufficient cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed (CPLR 3215[c]). Here, plaintiff waited almost three years to seek a default judgment, and it failed to provide sufficient cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed. As such, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as abandoned.

Plaintiff’s argument that defendant waived his right to seek dismissal pursuant to 3215(c) because he participated in the settlement conferences is equally unavailing. Although a party may waive it rights under CPLR 3215(c) “by serving an answer or taking any other steps which may be viewed as a formal or informal appearance”…,  defendant’s participation in settlement conferences did not constitute either a formal or an informal  appearance “since [he] did not actively litigate the action before the Supreme Court or participate in the action on the merits” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Martinez, 2020 NY Slip Op 01693, First Dept 3-12-20

 

INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTY SUMMONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the motion to dismiss for failure to name a necessary party should not have been granted. Rather the court should have ordered the party summoned:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have denied that branch of [defendant’s] motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(10) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for failure to join the estate … as a defendant. “When a [necesssary party] has not been made a party and is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall order him summoned” (CPLR 1001[b]). Accordingly, we remit the matter … for the joinder of the administrator of the estate … and for further proceedings consistent herewith … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Gedeon, 2020 NY Slip Op 01660, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

VACATING THE NOTE OF ISSUE RETURNS THE CASE TO THE PRE-NOTE OF ISSUE DISCOVERY STAGE, NO NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE TRIAL CALENDAR; THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF ISSUE, CITING LAW OFFICE FAILURE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that vacating the note of issue automatically removes the case from the trial calendar and restores the action to the pre-note of issue discovery stage. The Second Department also determined the motion to extend the time to file a note of issue, citing law office failure, should have been granted:

The Supreme Court should have denied, as unnecessary, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to restore the action to the active calendar … . Since the note of issue … was vacated, thereafter, the action was restored to the pre-note of issue discovery stage … . Because no note of issue had been filed, the action was not on the trial calendar. Therefore, the court’s action of marking the action “disposed” … , after the plaintiff failed to file and serve a note of issue by the court-ordered deadline, did not dismiss the action … . For the same reason, contrary to the defendant’s contention, CPLR 3404 was inapplicable … . As “this action was never properly dismissed, there was no need for a motion to restore” … .

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to extend his time to file a note of issue. CPLR 2004 allows a court to “extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown.” Here, the plaintiff established good cause for his delay in completing discovery and filing a note of issue based on law office failure, among other things … . Ryskin v Corniel, 2020 NY Slip Op 01658, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

,

THE BANK’S MOTION TO RESTORE THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAD BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT NOT FORMALLY, DISMISSED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED ITS INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE THE 2009 FORECLOSURE BUT THE MOTION TO RESTORE WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank should have been allowed to restore a 2009 foreclosure action which had been administratively, but not formally, dismissed. The court noted that the bank’s prior statement of its intention to discontinue the 2009 action did not trigger the judicial estoppel doctrine:

While, in an effort to successfully prosecute the 2015 foreclosure action, the Bank represented that it would seek to discontinue the 2009 action, it is not judicially estopped from changing its position. ” [A] party who assumes a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and secures a favorable judgment therein is precluded from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed'” … . The Bank did not obtain a favorable judgment in the 2015 foreclosure action.

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the Bank’s motion which was to restore the 2009 action to the active calendar. The 2009 action was never formally dismissed, as the marking-off procedures of CPLR 3404 do not apply to pre-note of issue actions such as this one … . Since the 2009 action could not properly be marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404, the Bank was not required to move to restore within any specified time frame and was not obligated to demonstrate a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious claim … . Further, there was neither a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 … , nor an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 … . Finally, [defendant] does not contend that the 2009 action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Gambino, 2020 NY Slip Op 01476, Second Dept 3-4-20

 

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