You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED IN PENNSYLVANIA, INFORMED FAMILY COURT HE WISHED TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE IN THE CUSTODY MATTER; FAMILY COURT DENIED THE REQUEST STATING THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT HELD FATHER, WHO HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO APPEAR BY PHONE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined that father, who was incarcerated in Pennsylvania, should have been allowed to appear in the custody proceeding by telephone. Father had informed the court of his wish to appear and had not challenged the court’s jurisdiction and informed Family Court he wished to appear by telephone. Family Court denied father’s request stating that the court did not have jurisdiction over father:

“The right to be heard is fundamental to our system of justice” … . Further, “[p]arents have an equally fundamental interest in the liberty, care and control of their children” … . “[E]ven an incarcerated parent has a right to be heard on matters concerning [his or her] child, where there is neither a willful refusal to appear nor a waiver of appearance” … . Here, the father had notice of the proceeding, did not challenge Family Court’s jurisdiction and the court could have permitted him to testify telephonically … . Because the record demonstrates that the father was not given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings, we must reverse and remit for a new hearing … . Matter of Starasia E. v Leonora E., 2020 NY Slip Op 00334, Third Dept 1-16-20

 

,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S AFFIRMATION STATING HE NEVER RECEIVED THE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS NOT REBUTTED BY PLAINTIFF; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE MOTION AND THE RESULTING JUDGMENT WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s (White’s) attorney’s affirmation stating he never received the bank’s summary judgment motion for a judgment of foreclosure deprived to court of jurisdiction and rendered the judgment a nullity:

“The failure to give a party proper notice of a motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion and renders the resulting order void” … . White’s opposition to the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale included his attorney’s affirmation, wherein his attorney stated that the attorney never received the summary judgment motion. In reply, the plaintiff did not submit an affidavit of service or other proof of service demonstrating that the summary judgment motion had been served on White’s counsel. The plaintiff’s assertions are insufficient to raise a presumption that White was served with the summary judgment motion … . At the time White’s attorney brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that the attorney had not received the motion for summary judgment and, in response, the plaintiff failed to submit any proof of service of the motion, the court was presented with evidence that the order … , was a nullity … . Under such circumstances, there was never a default in opposing the motion for summary judgment, and thus, there was no need for White to demonstrate a reasonable excuse or a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and vacated so much of the order … as granted the summary judgment motion … . MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v White, 2020 NY Slip Op 00269, Second Dept 1-17-20

 

, ,

THE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action:

Wells Fargo failed to establish, prima facie, that it had possession of the note prior to the commencement of the action, and thus failed to establish that it had standing to foreclose the mortgage … . Wells Fargo did not attach a copy of the note and allonge to the complaint when the action was commenced to establish, prima facie, that it had possession of the note at that time … . Moreover, the affidavit of Wells Fargo’s vice president of loan documentation was insufficient to establish that Wells Fargo possessed the note at the time the action was commenced … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Elsman, 2020 NY Slip Op 00321, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE; THE COURT NOTED THAT A THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should have been granted to several of the defendants in this medical malpractice action because the plaintiff’s expert did not raise a triable issue of fact. The expert did not demonstrate expertise in relevant areas and the expert’s opinions were conclusory and speculative with respect to three of the defendants. The Second Department noted that a court should not consider a theory of liability raised for the first time in opposition to a summary judgment motion:

“While it is true that a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field, the witness nonetheless should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable” … . “Thus, where a physician provides an opinion beyond his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . Here, the plaintiff’s expert, who specialized in general and vascular surgery, did not indicate that he or she had any special training or expertise in orthopaedics or family medicine, and failed to set forth how he or she was, or became, familiar with the applicable standards of care in these specialized areas of practice … . Further, the conclusions of the plaintiff’s expert as to Desai, Anand, and Sveilich were conclusory and speculative … , improperly based on hindsight reasoning … , and self-contradictory … . Samer v Desai, 2020 NY Slip Op 00318, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE RULINGS IN THIS CUSTODY/PARENTAL ACCESS CASE, HEARINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this custody/parental access proceeding, determined Supreme Court should have conducted hearings because the evidence relied upon was insufficient. The Second Department further found there was insufficient evidence to support the sanctions imposed for allegedly frivolous conduct:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination (1) awarding the defendant sole legal custody of the parties’ child, (2) denying that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to direct therapeutic parental access with the child, (3) directing that parental access between the plaintiff and the child “shall take place in accordance with [the child’s] preferences,” and (4) granting the defendant’s motion for a restraining order prohibiting the plaintiff from interfering with the child’s life at school, without first conducting an evidentiary hearing … . …

Here, the record demonstrates unresolved factual issues so as to require a hearing on the issues of custody and parental access … . Moreover, in making its custody and parental access determination, the Supreme Court relied on the hearsay statements and conclusions of the forensic evaluator, whose opinions and credibility were untested by either party … . * * *

… [P]ursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, sanctions may be imposed against a party or the party’s attorney for frivolous conduct. Conduct is “frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false” … . “A party seeking the imposition of a sanction or an award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) has the burden of proof” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff’s conduct during the underlying motion practice was frivolous … . Brin v Shady, 2020 NY Slip Op 00256, Second Dept 1-17-20

 

, , , ,

SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE TOO SEVERE, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDING PROOF OF COUNTERCLAIMS CENTRAL TO THE DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the verdict in favor of plaintiff employees, determined the sanctions imposed upon the employer (appellants) for a delayed response to discovery demands were too severe and ordered a new trial. The plaintiffs alleged appellants breached oral employment contracts. The appellants in their counterclaims alleged plaintiffs breached their fiduciary duty by violating Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and destroying and replacing handwritten notes about conversations with one of the appellants. The sanctions effectively prevented the appellants from demonstrating plaintiffs’ violation of SEC violations and destruction of evidence:

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, if a party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed . . . , the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just.” Although “[i]t is within the trial court’s discretion to determine the nature and degree of the penalty,” “[t]he sanction should be commensurate with the particular disobedience it is designed to punish, and go no further than that” … . Further, “the drastic remedy of striking a party’s pleading . . . for failure to comply with a discovery order is appropriate only where [it is] conclusively demonstrate[d] that the non-disclosure was willful, contumacious or due to bad faith” … .

Although the court here did not strike a pleading, its ruling could fairly be viewed as having done so, since the precluded evidence was critical to the fiduciary duty claims. Moreover, the court’s drastic sanctions were disproportionate to the alleged discovery malfeasance. It is unclear why a short continuance to give plaintiffs time to review the newly-produced documents would not have been a viable option, or why further curative instructions would not have sufficed. The record as a whole does not support a finding of willfulness or bad faith so as to justify the severe sanctions imposed … . No basis exists to indicate that this was anything other than a disagreement over the scope of discovery. Indeed, the court at trial stated that the alleged discovery omissions “appear[] not to have been in bad faith.” Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP, 2020 NY Slip Op 00230, First Dept 1-14-20

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING, DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; CRITERIA FOR PROVING EACH ISSUE EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because plaintiff’s standing, defendants’ default, and plaintiff’s compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 were not proven. The Second Department explained the proof requirements for each:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show that the note was properly endorsed and thus validly transferred to it … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff also failed to submit admissible evidence of the defendants’ default in making the mortgage payments due under the terms of the note and mortgage … . * * *

The plaintiff also failed to proffer evidence establishing its compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. U.S. Bank N.A. v Moulton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00171, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

,

JURY CONFUSION AND THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL; EVEN A WORKER AUTHORIZED TO BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF AN EXCAVATOR BUCKET CAN CLAIM THE PROTECTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS WORK IN AN AREA WHERE A WORKER MAY BE STRUCK BY EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the inconsistent verdict in this Labor Law 241(6) action required a new trial. The trial court had dismissed the action. The Second Department noted that even though plaintiff was a member of an excavator crew and therefore was authorized to be within range of a moving excavator bucket he still claim the protections provided by 12 NYCRR 23-9.5(k) which provides “[p]ersons shall not be . . . permitted to work in any area where they may be struck . . . by any excavation equipment.” Plaintiff’s hand was crushed by an excavator bucket:

The jury returned a verdict finding that the City defendants violated Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) 23-4.2(k), but that the violation was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. Although the instructions on the verdict sheet directed the jury to end its deliberations if it found that the violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) 23-4.2(k) was not a substantial factor in causing the accident, the jury further found that the injured plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident. The jury then proceeded to apportion fault 25% to the City defendants and 75% to the injured plaintiff. After the Supreme Court instructed the jurors to reconsider its verdict, the jury returned a second verdict which was identical to the first verdict, except that the jurors did not answer the questions as to the injured plaintiff’s negligence and apportionment of fault. …

“When a jury’s verdict is internally inconsistent, the trial court must direct either reconsideration by the jury or a new trial” ( …see CPLR 4111[c] …). “On reconsideration, the jury [is] free to substantively alter its original statement so as to conform to its real intention, and [is] not bound by the terms of its original verdict inasmuch as that verdict was not entered by the court” … . “Even after reconsideration by the jury, a trial court has discretion to set aside a verdict which is clearly the product of substantial confusion among the jurors” . “A new trial should be granted where . . . the record demonstrates … substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching a verdict” … . Torres v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00170, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING; RES JUDICATA DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE PRIOR ACTION WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT ACTION BECAUSE THE STANDING ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the prior dismissal of plaintiff bank’s foreclosure action for failure to demonstrate standing did not, under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel, preclude the present action. The prior dismissal was not on the merits and the standing issue in the current procedure is not the same as in the prior proceeding:

Here, as the prior action was dismissed for lack of standing, without reaching the merits of the foreclosure claim itself, the defendants failed to demonstrate that “a judgment on the merits exists between the same parties involving the same subject matter” … . “To accord res judicata effect to the [judgment in the prior action] would bar a court from ever addressing the merits of plaintiff’s mortgage foreclosure claim, even if plaintiff became able to demonstrate its standing to sue, and there is nothing in the record to suggest . . . [that there are] exceptional circumstances or an unreasonable neglect to prosecute that would warrant such an extreme sanction” … . …

… [T]the defendants failed to demonstrate that the issue of whether the plaintiff has standing under the circumstances of this action was identical to the issue adjudicated in the prior action … . In the prior action, the plaintiff failed to establish that it had possession of the original endorsed note at the time that action was commenced, while in the present action, the issue is whether the plaintiff had possession of the original endorsed note at the time this action was commenced … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Pantel, 2020 NY Slip Op 00109, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff bank did not submit sufficient proof of standing to bring the action:

Where, as here, a plaintiff’s standing to commence a foreclosure action is placed in issue by a defendant, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove its standing to be entitled to relief … . A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that, when the action was commenced, it was either the holder or assignee of the underlying note … . Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident … . Here, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to summary judgment because the affidavit submitted in support of the motion was insufficient to establish standing … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Conrado, 2020 NY Slip Op 00103, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

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