You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , , , ,

WHETHER PLAINTIFFS WILL BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIMS IN A COMPLAINT IS NOT CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; HERE THE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFFS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO LEARN AN ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF THEIR CASE IN DISCOVERY BECAUSE OF STATUTORY IMMUNITY WAS NOT RELEVANT TO WHETHER THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant school’s motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied. Plaintiffs alleged the school retaliated against them after they complained about race-related issues by making a false child neglect report to Child Protective Services (CPS). The school argued the plaintiffs will not be able to learn the identity of the person who reported the alleged neglect because of the immunity provided by the Social Services Law. The 2nd Department explained that the immunity question is not relevant to whether the complaint states causes of action:

… [P]laintiffs assert causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, violations of the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and negligent hiring, training and supervision … .

Defendants moved to dismiss all of these causes of action on the basis that plaintiffs would be unable to prove any of these claims because they did not know the identity of the CPS reporter and would be unable to learn it in discovery. …

… [I]n the context of this motion to dismiss, the Court does not assess the relative merits of the complaint’s allegations against defendant’s contrary assertions or to determine whether or not plaintiffs can produce evidence to support their claims … . Whether plaintiffs “can ultimately establish [their] allegations is not a part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss” … . Thus, regardless of whether plaintiffs will be able to obtain disclosure concerning the identity of the CPS reporter (Social Services Law § 422[4][A] …), defendants have not demonstrated entitlement to dismissal of the well-pleaded complaint for failure to state a cause of action … . M.H.B. v E.C.F.S., 2019 NY Slip Op 08276, First Dept 11-14-19

 

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED A MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION AND PROPOSED PLEADINGS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judges should have, sua sponte, granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint in the absence of a motion and a proposed pleading. The leave to amend was vacated:

The motion court should not have sua sponte granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint to assert an unpleaded negligent misrepresentation claim in the absence of a cross motion and an accompanying proposed pleading (CPLR 3025[b]). The lack of a proposed pleading precludes meaningful review of the sufficiency of the allegations, including defendant’s contention that such a claim is time barred … . Sutton Animal Hosp. PLLC v D&D Dev., Inc.. 2019 NY Slip Op 08263, First Dept 11-12-19

 

, , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE; THE BANK NEED NOT AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IF THE ISSUE IS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER; REPLY PAPERS CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES FIRST RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; BUT REPLY PAPERS MAY NOT PRESENT, FOR THE FIRST TIME, EVIDENCE ADDRESSING AN ISSUE RAISED IN THE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank (Aurora) did not provide sufficient proof of providing notice of default to defendants. The Second Department noted that the bank need not affirmatively prove compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 because the issue was not raised in defendant’s answer. The court also noted that evidence submitted in reply papers addressing matters raised for the first time in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment can be considered, but evidence submitted for the first time in reply papers addressing issues which were raised in the answer should not be considered:

In support of its motion, Aurora submitted two affidavits. The first affidavit was from Laura McCann, Vice President of Aurora, the loan servicer responsible for sending the notices of default. The second affidavit was from A.J. Loll, Vice President of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the current plaintiff and loan servicer. While McCann attested that Aurora was responsible for “providing notices pursuant to the terms of the note and mortgage evidencing the mortgage loan at issue, and specifically for providing notices such as the notice required under Section 22 of the mortgage,” nowhere in her affidavit did she attest to the actual mailing or delivery of those notices. As to the second affidavit, while Loll attested, inter alia, that “[t]he servicing records show that a 30-day letter was mailed to [the] defendants . . . … , which letter advised Defendants of their default,” and attached a purportedly “true copy” of the 30-day letter as Exhibit I, the affidavit did not contain a statement that the 30-day notice was sent in a manner according with the terms of the mortgage, i.e., “mailed by first class mail or . . . actually delivered to [borrower’s] notice address if sent by other means.” Moreover, Loll’s affidavit “did not contain a statement that [Loll] was familiar with [Aurora’s] mailing practices and procedures,” so as to establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . While Loll claimed that servicing records show that a 30-day letter was mailed to the defendants, she did not identify what those records are and did not authenticate them as business records and attach them to her affidavit … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Tamargo, 2019 NY Slip Op 08197, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, ,

COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FALSE ARREST AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not state causes of action for false arrest and malicious prosecution:

“A civilian defendant who merely furnishes information to law enforcement authorities, who are then free to exercise their own independent judgment as to whether an arrest will be made and criminal charges filed, will not be held liable for false arrest or malicious prosecution” … . “To be held liable for false arrest, the defendant must have affirmatively induced the officer to act, such as taking an active part in the arrest and procuring it to be made or showing active, officious and undue zeal, to the point where the officer is not acting of his [or her] own volition” … . “Similarly, in order for a civilian defendant to be considered to have initiated the criminal proceeding so as to support a cause of action based on malicious prosecution, it must be shown that defendant played an active role in the prosecution, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act” … . “Merely giving false information to the authorities does not constitute initiation of the proceeding without an additional allegation or showing that, at the time the information was provided, the defendant knew it to be false, yet still gave it to the police or District Attorney” … . Here, the plaintiff’s complaint and his affidavit in opposition to the motion merely alleged that the defendants provided false information to the police, and therefore, did not establish that the plaintiff has a cause of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution or false arrest against the defendants … . Williston v Jack Resnick & Sons, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08247, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, , ,

THE UCC CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF POSSESSION OF A LOST NOTE WERE NOT MET; PLAINTIFF BANK THEREFORE 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 it had standing to bring the foreclosure action. The UCC’s requirements for demonstrating ownership of a lost note were not met:

… [T]he affidavit of possession of the original note, sworn to by a vice president of loan documentation for the plaintiff, does not contain any details of delivery of the note, except for the claim that it was delivered to the plaintiff sometime after its execution, and that the plaintiff “had possession of the Promissory Note on or before … the date that this action was commenced.” The lost note affidavit of another vice president of loan documentation employed by the plaintiff stated vaguely, and in a conclusory manner, that the note was “inadvertently lost, misplaced or destroyed,” that the plaintiff had not “pledged, assigned, transferred, hypothecated or otherwise disposed of the note,” and that the plaintiff had made “a diligent and extensive search of its records in a good faith effort to discover the lost note in accordance with its procedures for locating the lost note.” The lost note affidavit did not provide any facts as to when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, or when or how the note was lost … . Thus, it “failed to sufficiently establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the note” … .

Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its ownership of the lost note (see UCC 3-804), or that it had standing, “as the lawful holder or assignee of the subject note on the date it commenced this action, to commence the action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Meisels, 2019 NY Slip Op 08243, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, ,

EXPERT’S OPINION THAT DEFENDANT’S IMPROPER INSTALLATION OF A SIDEWALK/MANHOLE CAUSED THE SIDEWALK HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD; THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined the motion to set aside the verdict in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Although plaintiff’s expert was properly qualified, his opinion that defendant’s improper installation of the sidewalk/manhole caused the sidewalk height-differential over which plaintiff tripped and fell was not supported by evidence in the record:

… [T]he expert reached his conclusion as to the defendant’s negligence by assuming material facts not supported by the evidence and by guessing and speculating in drawing that conclusion … . For example, the expert testified to having no knowledge of when the sidewalk was constructed, when the manhole had been installed, or the weight and inside dimensions of the manhole structure. Yet, he opined that the defendant was responsible for the settling of the sidewalk flag and manhole due to improper backfilling, simply because the manhole belonged to the defendant at the time of the plaintiff’s fall.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, absent the expert’s assumptive and speculative testimony, there was no evidence of the defendant’s negligence. ” Ippolito v Consolidated Edison of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08179, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

,

DISCOVERY OF DEFENDANT’S SOURCE CODE, A TRADE SECRET, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED FOR “ATTORNEYS AND EXPERT EYES ONLY” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the discovery-production of defendant’s source code, a trade secret, should have been for “attorneys and expert eyes only.”

The production of defendants’ source code, which is a trade secret … , should have been ordered to be produced for “attorneys and expert eyes only” … . Plaintiffs’ assertion that they have the expertise to review and opine on the source code and should not be subjected to retaining an expert, does not support unfettered access to defendants’ confidential algorithm. BEC Capital, LLC v Bistrovic, 2019 NY Slip Op 08144, First Dept 11-12-19

 

, ,

SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED FATHER’S ATTORNEY TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT NOTICE TO FATHER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED IN FATHER’S ABSENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the Support Magistrate’s findings should not have been confirmed because the Support Magistrate allowed father’s attorney to withdraw without notice to father and proceeded in father’s absence:

… [T]he Support Magistrate erred in allowing the father’s attorney to withdraw as counsel and in proceeding with the hearing in the father’s absence. “An attorney may withdraw as counsel of record only upon a showing of good and sufficient cause and upon reasonable notice to the client . . . [, and a] purported withdrawal without proof that reasonable notice was given is ineffective” … . Here, the father’s attorney did not make a written motion to withdraw; rather, counsel merely agreed when the Support Magistrate, after noting the father’s failure to appear for the hearing, offered to relieve her of the assignment. The absence of evidence that the father was provided notice of his counsel’s decision to withdraw in accordance with CPLR 321 (b) (2) renders the Support Magistrate’s finding of default improper … . Matter of Gonzalez v Bebee, 2019 NY Slip Op 08027, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT TO WARRANT A HEARING ON WHETHER SHE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive concurring memorandum, determined that defendant made a sufficient showing to warrant a hearing on whether she was served with the summons and complaint in this foreclosure action:

Although the defendant did not deny having actual notice of the action, “[w]hen the requirements for service of process have not been met, it is irrelevant that defendant may have actually received the documents” … . “Service is only effective . . . when it is made pursuant to the appropriate method authorized by the CPLR. Actual notice alone will not sustain the service or subject a person to the court’s jurisdiction [when there has not been compliance with] prescribed conditions of service” … . * * *

The defendant rebutted the process server’s affidavit of service through her specific and detailed affidavit, in which she averred that “[t]he [a]ffidavit of service falsely states that a copy of the Summons and Complaint was affixed to my door.” The defendant’s affidavit set out in great detail that the defendant was at home each time that the process server purportedly attempted service, as she was recuperating from a kidney transplant. The defendant averred that April 3, 2009, which happened to be her birthday, was a Friday, and that as an observant Jew she did not leave her home. The defendant submitted a Sabbath calendar printout showing that the sun did not set until 8:04 p.m. on April 4, 2009, approximately one hour after the process server purportedly affixed the summons and complaint to her door. The defendant averred that she never heard anyone knock at her door or ring her doorbell and that, despite various medical problems, she has no issues with her hearing. The defendant averred that her daughter came to pick her up for dinner at 8:30 p.m. on April 4, 2009, and that upon leaving her home, she did not see any documents affixed to her door. The foregoing detailed averments were sufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit and to warrant a hearing on the issue of whether service was properly made … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Assouline, 2019 NY Slip Op 07891, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

THE BUILDER OF THE HOUSE WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE SELLER BY THE PURCHASER; EVEN IF THE BUILDER WERE A NECESSARY PARTY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE SUMMONED THE BUILDER ITSELF PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 (b) RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to join a necessary party because (1) defendant (Accent) was not a necessary party and (2) even if Accent were a necessary party, the court should have summoned Accent itself pursuant to CPLR 1001 (b). The action concerned alleged defects in a house plaintiffs had purchased from defendants and claimed fraud, negligence, deceptive practices, breach of implied warranty, and breach of contract . Accent had constructed the house:

CPLR 1001 “limit[s] the scope of indispensable parties to those cases and only those cases where the determination of the court will adversely affect the rights of nonparties” … . Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate that Accent ought to be a party if complete relief is to be accorded between the plaintiffs and the defendants (see CPLR 1001[a]), and also failed to demonstrate that Accent will be inequitably affected by a judgment in this action absent its joinder … . Accent has no connection to the plaintiffs’ cause of action for breach of contract, which alleges only that the defendants breached their contract with the plaintiffs. As for the balance of the plaintiffs’ claims, Accent is, at best, a joint tortfeasor, with the plaintiffs having the option to proceed against any or all joint tortfeasors … . Accordingly, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination on the merits of the remaining branches of the defendants’ motion, and for further proceedings, if necessary, thereafter.

We note that, even if Accent was a necessary party, it appears to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore, the Supreme Court should have “order[ed] [it] summoned,” rather than granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint for failure to join a necessary party (CPLR 1001[b] …). Blatt v Johar, 2019 NY Slip Op 07901, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

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