You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING DEPENDS ON WHETHER THERE EXISTS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN THE CHILD AND THE RESPONDENT, THE PARAMOUR OF PETITIONER’S FORMER HUSBAND; BEFORE THE COURT CAN RULE ON THE JURISDICTION ISSUE A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” IS REQUIRED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have held a hearing before ruling it did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this family offense proceeding. The proceeding was against respondent, the paramour of petitioner’s former husband. Whether Family Court has jurisdiction depends on whether the respondent is or has been in an “intimate relationship” with petitioner’s child:

“Beyond expressly excluding from the definition of ‘intimate relationship’ a ‘casual acquaintance’ and ‘ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts'” … , “the [L]egislature left it to the courts to determine, on a case-by-case basis, what qualifies as an ‘intimate relationship’ within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e)” … . The factors that a court may consider while making such a determination are “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” … . “[T]he determination as to whether persons are or have been in an ‘intimate relationship’ within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is a fact-specific determination which may require a hearing” … .

Here, in light of the parties’ conflicting allegations as to whether there was an “intimate relationship” between the child and the respondent within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e), the Family Court, prior to determining whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, should have conducted a hearing on that issue … . Matter of De Phillips v Perez, 2025 NY Slip Op 02588, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Family Court can have subject matter jurisdiction over a family offense petition against a person who is not a family member but has an “intimate relationship” with the child. Here Family Court should not have found it did not have subject matter jurisdiction without first holding a hearing to determine whether there was an “intimate relationship” between the respondent and petitioner’s child.​

 

, , ,

THE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL NURSING FACILITY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COVID-19-RELATED DEATH IS PRECLUDED BY THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA); THE REPEAL OF THE ACT IS NOT RETROACTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence-based lawsuit against defendant residential nursing facility stemming from plaintiff’s decedent’s death from COVID-19 was precluded by the immunity conferred by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082, repealed by L 2021, ch 96, § 1) (EDTPA). The repeal of the EDTPA was not retroactive:

The EDTPA, as effective August 3, 2020, to April 5, 2021, provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility “shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of providing health care services,” if: (a) the health care facility “is providing health care services in accordance with applicable law, or where appropriate pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule”; (b) the act or omission occurs in the course of providing health care services and the treatment of the individual is impacted by the health care facility’s “decisions or activities in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the state’s directives”; and (c) the health care facility “is providing health care services in good faith” (Public Health Law former § 3082[1][a]-[c]). …

Here, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of immunity … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the repeal of the EDTPA is not retroactive … . Lara v S&J Operational, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02582, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Although the EDTPA has been repealed. the repeal is not applied retroactively. The COVID-19-related immunity conferred by the act precluded the lawsuit here.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF FELL 15 TO 20 FEET SUFFERING A FRACTURED RIB AND A FRACTURED FEMUR WHICH REQUIRED AN OPEN REDUCTION AND INTERNAL FIXATION SURGERY; THE VERDICT AWARDING $1.5 MILLION FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING, $2.5 MILLION FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING, AND $800,000 FOR FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the jury verdict as excessive should not have been granted:

The plaintiff was injured when, while standing on a beam performing demolition work, a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning duct fell and struck him, causing him to fall approximately 15 to 20 feet to the floor. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered, inter alia, a fractured rib and a fractured femur that required open reduction internal fixation surgery. A metal rod and screws were inserted into the plaintiff’s left leg. The plaintiff later underwent a surgical procedure to remove one of the screws. Furthermore, as a result of the accident, the plaintiff developed problems with both of his knees and his spine, requiring arthroscopic surgery on each knee and a laminotomy. The plaintiff walks with a limp, has limited motion of the hip and knees, and has developed arthritis that will worsen over time. Since the accident, the plaintiff has experienced constant pain despite having been administered numerous injections, including trigger-point injections and transforaminal injections, and having been prescribed several medications, including opioids. Further, the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff will continue to experience pain and will require future medical treatment, including pain management and, likely, a spinal fusion.

The jury awarded the plaintiff damages in the principal sums of $1,500,000 for past pain and suffering, $2,500,000 for future pain and suffering over a period of 35 years, and $800,000 for future medical expenses over a period of 35 years. Thereafter, the defendants third-party plaintiffs and the third-party defendant separately moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside, as excessive, the jury verdict on the issue of damages for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses. In an order dated June 8, 2020, the Supreme Court granted those branches of the separate motions to the extent of directing a new trial on those categories of damages, unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the damages awards to the principal sums of $800,000 for past pain and suffering, $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and $400,000 for future medical expenses. …

* * * … [C]onsidering the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the damages awards for past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses, as awarded by the jury, were appropriate and did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation … . Aguilar v Graham Terrace, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02564, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: A jury’s damages award for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses should not be set aside unless the award is demonstrated to “deviate materially from what would be considered reasonable compensation,” not the case here.

 

,

THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN CPLR 3216 PRECLUDED DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to comply with the requirements of CPLR 3216 precluded the dismissal of the complaint:

… [A]bsent strict compliance with the conditions precedent to dismissal set forth in CPLR 3216 (b) (3), “[n]o dismissal shall be directed” … . Indeed, “[t]he conditions precedent to bringing a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under CPLR 3216 must be complied with strictly” … .

Among those conditions precedent are the service of a ninety-day demand to resume prosecution, by registered or certified mail, which specifically states that the failure to file the note of issue within ninety days will serve as a basis for a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution … . Where the ninety-day demand is served by the court, the demand shall also “set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … .

Here, the court did not serve a ninety-day demand upon plaintiff, and for that reason alone, the court erred in directing dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court’s second supplemental scheduling order could serve as the substitute for a ninety-day demand, that scheduling order did not indicate that dismissal would result if plaintiff failed to file the note of issue, nor did it set forth the specific conduct constituting plaintiff’s neglect … . “While an order may have the same effect as a valid 90-day demand, that order must advise as to the consequences for failing to comply, i.e., dismissal of the complaint” … , and here, the order wholly failed to do so. Woloszuk v Logan-Young, 2025 NY Slip Op 02444, Fourth Dept 4-25-25

Practice Point: The conditions precedent for dismissal of a complaint in CPRL 3216 must be strictly complied with by the judge or reversal is mandatory.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT OBJECT TO THEM AND RELIED ON THEM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this breach of contract action, determined that, although the defendant’s attorney-affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the attached documents, the documents were admissible because plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of the documents and relied on those documents in opposing defendant’s motion:

Supreme Court improvidently concluded that defendant’s documentary evidence was not admissible for purposes of its motion. An attorney’s affirmation “‘may properly serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, like documentary evidence,’ so long as the [affirmation] ‘constitute[s] a proper foundation for the admission of the records'” … . The court was correct that defendant’s attorney, in her affirmation, did not lay a foundation for the admission of the records, such as her personal knowledge or her certification of the documents as true and complete copies of the originals. However, plaintiff never objected to the admissibility of any of the documents annexed to the attorney’s affirmation … and relied on the same documents in opposition to defendant’s motion … . AWL Indus., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 02402, First Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: An attorney affidavit can be used as a vehicle for the admission of documentary evidence if the affidavit lays a proper foundation.

Practice Point: Here, although the defendant’s attorney affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the attached documents, the documents were admissible because the plaintiff did not object to them and relied on them in opposition to the defendant’s motion.

 

, ,

THE USE OF POST-DISCHARGE AFFIDAVITS FROM TWO JURORS, CLAIMING JUROR CONFUSION, AS THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THE CLAIMS IN THE RECORD; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the jury verdict should not have been granted. The motion was based upon affidavits from two jurors which were drafted after the jury was discharged. There was no support in the record for the claims made in the affidavits:

“It has long been the law that, with narrow exceptions, jury verdicts may not be impeached by probes into the jury’s deliberative process” …. Further, “jurors may not impeach their own verdict unless they have been subjected to outside influence” … . This principle, however, is subject to two exceptions. First, “where an error is made in reporting the verdict, the trial judge may, upon the unanimous affidavits or statements of the jurors, correct the judgment to conform to the actual verdict” … . Second, “where the record demonstrates substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching a verdict, the court must direct a new trial to prevent a miscarriage of justice to the litigants” … . However, “[t]he use of post-discharge juror affidavits to attack the verdict is ‘patently improper’ where the record is devoid of any evidence of external influence, juror confusion, or ministerial error in reporting the verdict” … .

… [Defendant] sought to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of apportionment of liability based upon post-discharge affidavits from two jurors indicating that the jury was confused regarding the apportionment of liability. However, the trial record is devoid of any evidence of juror confusion regarding the issue of apportionment of liability, and thus, the use of post-discharge affidavits from jurors to attack the verdict is patently improper … . Gleneida Med. Care, P.C. v DBG Mgt. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02323, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of when a jury verdict may be impeached by probing into the jury’s deliberative process.

 

,

PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED MORE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT UNDER EITHER THE “GOOD CAUSE” OR “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” CRITERIA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been granted more time to serve the summons and complaint under either the “good cause” or “interest of justice” criteria:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a plaintiff is required to serve the summons and complaint within 120 days after commencement of the action. If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon the defendant within that time, “the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service” … . “To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service” … . Such a showing is not required to obtain an extension of time under the interest of justice standard, which is a broader standard intended to “‘accommodate late service that might be due to mistake, confusion or oversight, so long as there is no prejudice to the defendant'” … . “The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties” … . In reaching its determination, “the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish good cause to extend the time to serve [defendant], as no evidence was offered that she attempted to serve him with reasonable diligence. Further, … the plaintiff failed to establish that an extension of time to serve … was warranted in the interest of justice. The plaintiff failed to offer any explanation for the eight-month delay in filing the affidavit of service, the delay in moving, among other things, for leave to enter a default judgment … , and the four-month delay in moving to extend the time to serve … after the defendants had cross-moved … to dismiss the complaint … for lack of personal jurisdiction. There is no evidence in the record that [defendant] had notice of the action during the 120-day period after the commencement of the action … . Druss v Scher, 2025 NY Slip Op 02318, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Even though the statute of limitations had passed. plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence precluded an extension of time to serve the defendant, under either the “good cause” or “interest of justice” criteria.

 

, ,

THE DISMISSAL OF A FORELCOSURE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS NOT AN EXPRESS JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTION DID NOT VALIDLY ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE, HERE, THE 2013 FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was time-barred. The bank’s argument that the the foreclosure complaint filed in 2013 did not accelerate the debt was rejected. The 2013 action was dismissed in 2018 because the bank did not comply with the notice of default requirement in Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304. That dismissal did not constitute an express judicial finding that the debt had not been validly accelerated when the 2013 complaint was filed:

Deutsche Bank’s argument that the complaint in the 2013 action did not constitute a valid acceleration of the debt is precluded by the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (hereinafter FAPA) … . FAPA amended CPLR 213(4) to provide that in an action pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record a mortgage, “a defendant shall be estopped from asserting that the period allowed by the applicable statute of limitation for the commencement of an action upon the instrument has not expired because the instrument was not validly accelerated prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior action, unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated” … . Here, the Supreme Court directed dismissal of the complaint in the 2013 action upon a determination that Deutsche Bank failed to establish … its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The mailing of a RPAPL 1304 notice, while a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action, is not a precondition for acceleration of the debt … , and thus, the 2013 action was not dismissed upon an expressed judicial determination that the debt was not validly accelerated. Brennan v Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 2025 NY Slip Op 02308, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: A foreclosure action is time-barred six years after the debt was accelerated by the filing of the complaint, unless there is an express judicial determination that the filing of the complaint did not accelerate the debt. A dismissal of the foreclosure action based upon the bank’s failure to comply with the RPAPL 1304 notice of default requirements is not an express judicial determination that the foreclosure complaint did not validly accelerate the debt. Therefore, in this case, the 2013 foreclosure action, which was dismissed in 2018 for failure to comply with RPAPL 1304, is time-barred.

 

,

A JUDGE SHOULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, ORDER THE DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT ABSENT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,” NOT PRESENT HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were no extraordinary circumstances to justify the judge’s “sua sponte” dismissal of the complaint:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Here, no extraordinary circumstances existed warranting dismissal of the complaint … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint. Project Guardianship v Chai 91 St. Marks PLC, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02360, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: There have been many reversals of “sua sponte” dismissals of complaints.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING “PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add allegations supporting “piercing the corporate veil” in this breach of contract action should have been granted:

“Broadly speaking, the courts will disregard the corporate form, or, to use accepted terminology, pierce the corporate veil, whenever necessary to prevent fraud or to achieve equity” … . “Because a decision whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instance will necessarily depend on the attendant facts and equities, the New York cases may not be reduced to definitive rules governing the varying circumstances when the power may be exercised” … . However, “[g]enerally, a plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff must adequately allege the existence of corporate obligation and that defendant exercised complete domination and control over the corporation and abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice” … . “[T]he corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego. In determining whether to pierce the corporate veil, [g]enerally considered are such factors as whether there is an overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel, inadequate capitalization, a commingling of assets, or an absence of separate paraphernalia that are part of the corporate form” … . Another factor to be considered is whether the corporation and its owners shared “common office space” … . “A cause of action under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is not required to meet any heightened level of particularity in its allegations” … , and “a fact-laden claim to pierce the corporate veil is unsuited for resolution on a pre-answer, pre-discovery motion to dismiss” … . HLI Rail & Rigging, LLC v Franklin Exhibit Mgt. Group, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02330, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise description of the criteria for “piercing the corporate veil” in the context of a motion to amend the complaint to add the relevant allegations.

 

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