You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT A HEARING AND THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANTS WERE SEEKING TO TERMINATE PLAINTIFF’S DIALYSIS TREATMENT BASED UPON SHARPLY CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S BEHAVIOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the the temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing defendant dialysis provider from stopping plaintiff’s treatment should not have been vacated and plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction should have been denied without a hearing. The dialysis provider, Avantus, wanted to discontinue treatment because of plaintiff’s behavior. However the evidence of plaintiff’s behavior was sharply conflicting:

… [T]he motion court had found that Avantus had not produced evidence showing that it had complied with any of the federal procedural requirements for terminating a patient’s care. Defendants had not presented any new evidence that it had done so before the court issued the order presently on appeal. Indeed, the court did not address the merits of defendants’ decision to terminate plaintiff’s care at all. Accordingly, the motion court should not have denied plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction without holding a hearing.

The motion court also improperly vacated the TRO without a hearing. Plaintiff’s showing that he would be irreparably injured in the absence of a TRO never changed. The court was presented with no evidence inconsistent with its finding in issuing the TRO that “there is no dispute that dialysis is a life-saving measure which plaintiff sorely needs, and at this stage of the litigation, the defendants have not established that the reasons for plaintiff’s discharge from the facility outweigh the risks that discharge would carry with regard to plaintiff’s health.”

In addition, although the court concluded that plaintiff had failed to comply with the conditions set forth in the TRO, the parties presented sharply divergent facts on that issue, which could not be resolved without a hearing. Wilder v Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06054, First Dept 8-7-19

 

ACTION BROUGHT BY EUROPEAN PLAINTIFFS CONCERNING THE OWNERSHIP OF A PAINTING ILLEGALLY CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS AND SOLD IN NEW YORK BY CHRISTIE’S PROPERLY DISMISSED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined a lawsuit to determine ownership of a Degas painting illegally confiscated by Nazis and years later sold at a Christie’s auction in New York was properly dismissed on forum non conveniens.  The plaintiffs’ rights arose in Germany and France and Swiss and French estate law apply:

The motion court properly dismissed this action on forum non conveniens grounds without first determining whether it had personal jurisdiction over all the defendants. Sinochem Intl. Co. Ltd. v Malaysia Intl. Shipping Corp.(549 US 422 [2007]) is persuasive authority on this point. In that case, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that a trial court “has discretion to respond at once to a defendant’s forum non conveniens plea, and need not take up first any other threshold objection. In particular, a court need not resolve whether it has authority to adjudicate the cause (subject matter jurisidiction) or personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it determines that, in any event, a foreign tribunal is plainly the more suitable arbiter of the merits of the case” (id. at 425). To be sure, as the Sinochem Court noted, if a court can readily determine that it lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the proper course is to dismiss on that ground. However, where personal jurisdiction is difficult to determine, and forum non conveniens considerations clearly militate in favor of dismissal, a court may dismiss on the latter ground (id. at 436). …

Plaintiffs’ rights as heirs to the painting arose in Germany and France, although the painting was allegedly wrongfully sold in New York. The burden on the New York court in applying Swiss and French estate law to determine the underlying issue of the lawful heirs to [the owner’s] estate is significant. As the motion court noted, the parties “not only dispute the applicable foreign law, but discuss the substance of the law . . . in a manner that is, at best, opaque.” “The applicability of foreign law is an important consideration in determining a forum non conveniens motion . . . and weighs in favor of dismissal” … . …

The potential hardships to the defendants of litigating in New York are clear. * * *

Switzerland appears to be an available alternative forum. France and Germany also may be possible alternatives.  Kainer v UBS AG, 2019 NY Slip Op 06053, First Dept 8-7-19

 

,

DISPUTE INVOLVING MALAYSIAN BANKS, INCLUDING GOLDMAN SACHS SINGAPORE, PROPERLY DISMISSED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined a dispute involving Goldman Sachs Singapore (GSS) was properly dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds:

The action was properly dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, given the unduly burdensome inquiry involved in determining personal jurisdiction in these circumstances and the balance of the forum non conveniens considerations … . The decision whether the court had jurisdiction over GSS because GSS was a mere department of New-York-based Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GSG) would involve an “arduous inquiry”… into whether GSG controlled GSS’s finances, interfered with the selection and assignment of executive personnel, and failed to observe corporate formalities, and whether defendant Tim Leissner had sufficient contacts with New York.

Plaintiff’s causes of action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty lack a substantial nexus with New York … . Furthermore, plaintiff is a Cayman Islands partnership, not a New York resident … . Finally, Malaysia has a greater interest than New York in whether one Malaysian bank (nonparty Hong Leong Bank) corruptly took over another Malaysian bank (EON) … . Primus Pac. Partners 1, LP v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06052, First Dept 8-6-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF LOAN SERVICING COMPANY WAIVED THE TIME OF THE ESSENCE PROVISION BY ITS RELENTLESS EFFORTS TO PREVENT THE FORECLOSURE SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER (TO EXACT A HIGHER PRICE); THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED ON PLAINTIFF WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY A WRITTEN DECISION AS REQUIRED BY THE CONTROLLING REGULATION; SANCTIONS ASPECT REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff loan company waived the time of the essence provision in this foreclosure sale to the highest bidder, Fox, by its relentless attempts to prevent the sale from going forward (to exact a higher purchase price). The Fourth Department noted that the sanctions imposed upon plaintiff were not supported by a written decision as required by 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and remanded for compliance with the regulation:

We reject plaintiff’s contention that the court erred in determining that Fox did not breach the time is of the essence clause. It is well settled that “[a] party may waive timely performance even where the parties have agreed that time is of the essence” … , and that such a waiver may be accomplished by the conduct of a party … . Here, we agree with the court that plaintiff’s relentless attempts to prevent the sale from going forward constituted a waiver of the time is of the essence clause.

We also reject plaintiff’s further contention that the court erred in determining that plaintiff engaged in frivolous conduct and in imposing sanctions for such conduct. We conclude that plaintiff’s conduct was “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law[, and was] undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1], [2] …). Nevertheless, we conclude that the court erred in failing to comply with 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 because “it failed to set forth in a written decision the conduct on which . . . the imposition [of sanctions] is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount . . . imposed to be appropriate’ ” … . We therefore modify the order by vacating the fourth ordering paragraph and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for compliance with 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Strauss, 2019 NY Slip Op 05866, Fourth Dept 7-31-1

 

, ,

A COURT MAY CONVERT A MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT NOTICE WHERE A PURE QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED; THE STRICTER STANDARDS FOR NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENTS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT DO NOT APPLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SALE OF A BUSINESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that Supreme Court properly dispensed with notice when it converted a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment on a contractual-interpretation issue, and further noted the difference between non-competition agreements in the employment context and in the sale-of-a-business context. Here defendant sold his business, including goodwill, to plaintiff and then was employed by plaintiff:

… [A]lthough the court is normally required to give notice to the parties before converting a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment … , the court properly dispensed with the statutory notice here inasmuch as the issue presented “rested entirely upon the construction and interpretation of an unambiguous contractual provision . . . [that] exclusively involve[d] issues of law which were fully appreciated and argued by the parties’ ” … . …

Because plaintiff sold his business to defendant, including the goodwill of that business, the enforceability of the restrictive covenants must be evaluated pursuant to the standard applicable to the sale of a business rather than the “stricter standard of reasonableness” applicable to employment contracts … . It is well settled that a covenant restricting the right of a seller of a business to compete with the buyer is enforceable if its duration and scope are “reasonably necessary to protect the buyer’s legitimate interest in the purchased asset” … . Frank v Metalico Rochester, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05863, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE/MAILING REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS, THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed because plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have confirmed the Referee’s report. The plaintiff failed to submit any evidence at the hearing of compliance with the mailing requirement of CPLR 308(2) and, thus, failed to demonstrate that personal jurisdiction had been obtained over the defendants … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Puretz, 2019 NY Slip Op 05958, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

,

THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE BANK’S UNEXCUSED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE IN VIOLATION OF 22 NYCRR 202.27(c) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s unexcused failure to appear at a scheduled conference required denial of the bank’s motion to vacate a default judgment:

Although CPLR 3215(c) was not an appropriate ground upon which to dismiss the complaint because the plaintiff initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment by moving for an order of reference within one year of the defendant’s default …, dismissal of the complaint was appropriate pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27(c) since the plaintiff failed to appear for the scheduled October 2012 conference.

A plaintiff seeking to vacate a default in appearing at a conference is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1] … ). Although “[t]he determination of whether an excuse is reasonable is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court” … , the defaulting party must submit evidence in admissible form establishing both a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious cause of action or defense … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged only that the failure of its two prior attorneys to timely file the attorney affirmation in accordance with the January 2011 order caused the delay in prosecuting this action, and failed to proffer any evidentiary support therefor or any excuse for its failure to appear at the October 2012 conference. Moreover, the record reflects that the plaintiff did not take any action for almost four years to cure its default after the action was marked off the calendar. Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default … , we need not reach the issue of whether it had asserted a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v McClintock, 2019 NY Slip Op 06015, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF CHURCH’S OBJECTION TO THE SYNOD’S TAKING CONTROL OF A SCHOOL OPERATED BY PLAINTIFF CHURCH IS A RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY WHICH IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN STATE COURTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined three causes of action in a lawsuit brought by a church (Eltingville) against the Synod and its Bishop (stemming from the Synod’s decision to place a school owned and operated by Eltingville under its control) were not justiciable in state courts because of the constitutional separation of church and state:

… [T]he complaint challenged the Synod’s determination to impose synodical administration upon Eltingville. Such a determination could only be made upon finding that “the membership of a congregation has become so scattered or so diminished in numbers as to make it impractical for such a congregation to fulfill the purposes for which it was organized or that it is necessary for this synod to protect the congregation’s property from waste and deterioration” (Synod’s Constitution § 13.24; see Religious Corporations Law § 17-c[2][a][iii]). A Synod’s determination to impose synodical administration on a local church is a nonjusticiable religious determination … . Eltingville Lutheran Church v Rimbo, 2019 NY Slip Op 05957, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

,

THE CLAIM WAS NOT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY ALLEGE LOST WAGES AS PART OF THE DAMAGES IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, THE DISSENT DISAGREED AND WOULD HAVE VACATED THE AWARD FOR LOST WAGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department affirmed the award of money damages to claimant for personal injury. The claim did not specifically request lost wages as damages. The majority held the claim was not jurisdictionally deficient and the specific items of damage need not have been spelled out. The dissenter disagreed and argued the award for lost wages should be vacated:

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction with respect to damages for past and future lost wages inasmuch as the facts alleged by claimant “were sufficient to apprise [defendant] of the general nature of the claim and to enable it to investigate the matter” … .

The plain language of the statute requires a claimant to specify “the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained” and, “except in[, inter alia,] action[s] to recover damages for personal injury . . . , the total sum claimed” (Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]). Contrary to the view of our dissenting colleague, a natural reading of the statute requires a claimant to specify the items of damage to property or injuries to a person for which the claimant seeks compensation. Here, claimant sufficiently specified the nature of the claim, the time when and the place where the claim arose, and the injuries claimed to have been sustained, i.e., “injuries to his shoulder, bicep, and elbow” … . Inasmuch as this is an action for damages for personal injury, claimant was not required to specify, in total or itemized by category, his claimed items of damage … . Damages sought by claimant for medical expenses or lost wages are matters for the bill of particulars. Donahue v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 05948, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, , , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THE ATTORNEY HAD ATTEMPTED TO REMEDY THE FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS IN AN ESTATE MATTER AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN; ABSENCE OF AN EXPERT’S REPORT FROM THE RECORD ON APPEAL PRECLUDED A RULING ON THE RELATED ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this legal malpractice action. The attorney had attempted to remedy the failure to file objections in an estate matter after the statute had run. The Fourth Department noted that plaintiff’s expert’s report was missing from the record on appeal and therefore plaintiff was unable to argue on appeal that he had raised a related question of fact (concerning damages) before Supreme Court. Defendant had argued the damages were speculative (requiring dismissal) and Supreme Court did not rule on the issue (because the case was dismissed as untimely). The matter was remitted for a ruling on the damages issue:

We are unable to review plaintiff’s contention that he raised a triable issue of fact with respect to … damages by submitting an expert report inasmuch as plaintiff failed to include that document in the record on appeal. Thus plaintiff, as the party raising this issue on his appeal, “submitted this appeal on an incomplete record and must suffer the consequences” … . …

Defendant met his burden … by establishing that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice is three years (see CPLR 214 [6]), that the estate cause of action accrued on November 1, 2010, the last date on which to file objections to the accounting …, and that the estate cause of action was therefore untimely when this malpractice action was commenced on November 15, 2013. “The burden then shifted to plaintiff[] to raise a triable issue of fact whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine” … .

We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in determining that plaintiff failed to do so. It is well settled that, in order for the continuous representation doctrine to apply, “there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependant relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” … . Here, plaintiff submitted evidence that defendant made several unsuccessful attempts to file the objections within the weeks after the deadline and that he made preparations to appear at a scheduled conference on the objections on November 23, 2010. Those efforts could be viewed as “attempt[s] by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” … , and thus plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. Leeder v Antonucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 05898, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

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