You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

PLAINTIFF’S ‘DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL’ ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S CASE WAS CLOSED; THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S ULTIMATE SUCCESS WAS UNLIKELY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, setting aside the verdict, and ordering a new trial, determined that the motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted prior to the close the plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff had brought an action against the City of New York pursuant to 42 USC 1983 alleging he had not received a fair trial:

The denial of a fair trial claim is a stand alone cause of action (see e.g. Garnett v Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F3d 265, 278-279 [2d Cir 2016]), which should not have been dismissed prior to the conclusion of plaintiff’s case in chief. CPLR 4401 permits a party to move for a directed verdict “after the close of the evidence presented by an opposing party with respect to such cause of action or issue.” “[I]t is reversible error to grant a motion for a directed verdict prior to the close of the party’s case against whom a directed verdict is sought” … , even if the ultimate success of a plaintiff’s cause of action is unlikely … . Cromedy v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07527, First Dept 10-22-19

 

,

CLASS ACTION CLAIM BY TENANTS ALLEGING VARIOUS FORMS OF RENT OVERCHARGES PROPERLY SURVIVED A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND SHOULD PROCEED TO THE CERTIFICATION STAGE PURSUANT TO CPLR 902 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a three-judge dissent, determined the pre-answer motion to dismiss a class action claim by tenants alleging various forms of rent overcharges was properly denied and the matter should move on for a ruling on whether the prerequisites for a class action under CPLR 902 are met:

… [T]here is an element of truth to defendants’ suggestion that the class claims — particularly those based on the alleged misrepresentation and inflation of the costs of IAIs [individual apartment improvements]— may require separate proof with respect to each plaintiff. Along those lines, defendants note that the operative complaint “alleges overcharges for inflated IAI increases of [various] amounts” — 136%, 97%, 82%, 104%, 113%, 33%, or 254% for various apartments — which they contend supports the idea that the alleged overcharges are separate wrongs to separate persons that do not form the basis for a class action … .

That leads to the friction point on this appeal: are we to look at the common basis for a damages claim or the degree of damage alleged? On the one hand, if, as defendants suggest, the differences in the specific means of harm is considered — that is, if at this stage the Court contemplates nuances of how those overcharges allegedly were accomplished — then plaintiffs may struggle to satisfy the factual component of CPLR 901 (a) (2). On the other hand, as plaintiffs note, to focus on potential idiosyncrasies within the class claims — distinctions that speak to damages, not to liability — at this juncture would potentially be to reward bad actors who execute a common method to damage in slightly different ways. * * *

Here the complaint addresses harm effectuated through a variety of approaches but within a common systematic plan … , and its class claims should not be dismissed at this juncture. Maddicks v Big City Props., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07519, CtApp 10-22-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED JURISDICTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INCONVENIENT FORUM FACTORS MANDATED BY THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW; MOTHER HAD RELOCATED TO FLORIDA WITH THE CHILDREN AND FATHER WAS SEEKING TELEPHONE AND ELECTRONIC CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have relinquished jurisdiction without considering the factors required by statute before finding New York to be an inconvenient forum. Mother had relocated to Florida with the children and father brought a petition and an order to show cause alleging mother refused to allow telephone and electronic contact with the children:

… [M]other’s counsel made a request for dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (see Domestic Relations Law art 5-A [hereinafter UCCJEA]). The father opposed this request, advising that he had not received the notice of limited appearance and did not know that jurisdiction would be contested at the initial appearance. Following a brief discussion with counsel, Family Court granted the mother’s request, dismissed the petition, denied the relief sought in the order to show cause and directed all further proceedings to take place in Florida. The father appeals.

Family Court erred in summarily relinquishing jurisdiction. As the court acknowledged, it had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the UCCJEA … . Although a court may decline to exercise such jurisdiction upon finding that New York is an inconvenient forum and another state is a more appropriate forum … , such a determination must be made in accord with the statutory directives established within Domestic Relations Law § 76-f. The statutory requirements were not met here. Matter of Cody RR. v Alana SS., 2019 NY Slip Op 07471, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NY BOARD OF TRUSTEES’ CHARTER SCHOOL COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE TEACHER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TEACHERS IN CHARTER SCHOOLS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, after finding the petitioners in one of the two actions had the capacity to sue and standing, determined the State University of New York Board of Trustees’ Charter School Committee (the Committee) did not have the authority to promulgate regulations changing the teacher certification requirements for teachers in certain charter schools:

… [I]t is a basic principle of administrative law that an agency has only “those powers expressly conferred by its authorizing statute, as well as those required by necessary implication” … . Education Law § 355 (2-a) authorizes the Committee, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, or regulation to the contrary, . . . to promulgate regulations with respect to governance, structure and operations of [SUNY-authorized] charter schools.” Respondents assert that the regulations fall within this statutory authorization because teacher licensure pertains to the “operation” of SUNY-authorized charter schools. In analyzing this claim, we need not defer to the Committee’s interpretation of the Education Law, as “the question is one of pure statutory reading and analysis, dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent” … . * * *

We … conclude that the inclusion of the word “operation” in Education Law § 355 (2-a) does not authorize the Committee to promulgate regulations pertaining to teacher licensure and certification. We further find that the regulations conflict with provisions of the Education Law that authorize the Commissioner to prescribe regulations governing the certification of teachers and that require most teachers in charter schools and pre-kindergartens to be certified in the same manner as other public school teachers … . The Committee therefore exceeded its authority in promulgating the regulations … . Matter of New York State Bd. of Regents v State Univ. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 07458, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, , , ,

THE DEATH OF A PARTY TO THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFFECTED THE MERITS OF THE CASE; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND THE RELATED ORDER IS A NULLITY; THE APPEAL THEREFORE MUST BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the death of a party to this foreclosure proceeding deprived the court of jurisdiction. Therefore the court should not have considered defendant’s motion and the related order was a nullity:

In 2003, defendant Sharon A. Harris (hereinafter defendant) and defendant Marion D. Schubnel executed a note in favor of plaintiff that was secured by a mortgage on real property located in Albany County. Defendant and Schubnel owned the subject property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. …

… [P]laintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against defendant and Schubnel, among others. Defendant served an answer but Schubnel failed to do so. In November 2016, Schubnel died. In July 2017, defendant moved for leave to serve an amended answer and, as relevant here, sought to add a statute of limitations affirmative defense. In an amended order entered November 2017, Supreme Court granted the motion and sua sponte dismissed the complaint as time-barred. …

The death of a party generally stays an action until a personal representative is substituted for the deceased party … . Strict adherence to this rule, however, is unnecessary where a party’s demise does not affect the merits of the case … .

It is true that defendant, as the surviving joint tenant, obtained Schubnel’s interest in the subject property upon Schubnel’s death. Notwithstanding this transfer of interest, Schubnel’s estate can still be held liable for any deficiency in the event that a sale of the subject property fails to satisfy the debt. Indeed, the complaint specifically requests that such relief be granted should it be necessary … . In the absence of a substitution of Schubnel, a discontinuance of the action insofar as asserted against Schubnel or a representation by plaintiff that it would be waiving its right to seek a deficiency judgment against Schubnel, the death of Schubnel affects the merits of the case … . Because an automatic stay was in effect upon Schubnel’s death, Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion and, therefore, the November 2017 amended order is a nullity … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Schubnel, 2019 NY Slip Op 07462, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

A LETTER INDICATING THE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED IF THE ARREARS WERE NOT PAID DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment contending the bank’s action was time barred and the bank failed to comply with RPAPL 1304 should have been denied. The 2010 letter from the bank which mentioned that the loan would be accelerated if the arreats were not paid did not serve to accelerate the debt. And defendant (Grella) did not demonstrate the bank failed to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

On or about December 12, 2010, the loan servicer sent Grella a notice of default which demanded payment of the arrears, and stated, in relevant part, that “[u]nless the payments on your loan can be brought current by January 11, 2011, it will become necessary to require immediate payment in full (also called acceleration) of your Mortgage Note. . . . If funds are not received by the above referenced date, we will proceed with acceleration.” Thereafter, the note and the mortgage were assigned to the plaintiff. …

Contrary to Grella’s contention, the language in the 2010 notice of default did not serve to accelerate the loan, as it “was nothing more than a letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, which does not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause” … . …

Here, as the moving party, Grella was required to affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . Grella failed to make such a showing.  HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Grella, 2019 NY Slip Op 07388, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

, , ,

STAY IMPOSED BY A SOUTH CAROLINA COURT AS PART OF THE LIQUIDATION OF A SOUTH CAROLINA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CARRIER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN A NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS INSURED BY THE INSOLVENT CARRIER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, determined that the stay imposed by a South Carolina court after the medical malpractice carrier, Oceanus, was declared insolvent and dissolved was not entitled to full faith and credit in the New York actions against parties insured by Oceanus. Oceanus was not a party to the New York actions, and due process trumped the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act (UILA). The opinion is comprehensive and the reasoning cannot be fairly summarized here:

Notwithstanding the goals of the UILA, for the reasons set forth herein, the principles of due process and the right of the plaintiffs to seek redress in the courts in New York for wrongs they allege occurred in New York mandate that the South Carolina order is not entitled to full faith and credit or comity by the courts in New York in this and the related actions. Hala v Orange Regional Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 07387, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

,

FRENCH COMPANY WHICH MANUFACTURED ELEVATOR BRAKES FOR SALE TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over a French company (Warner Europe) which manufactured elevator brakes in this elevator-malfunction case. The French company sold the brakes to other companies which incorporated the brakes into their elevator A.C. drives:

Warner Europe established that it does not sell the elevator brakes it manufactures in France to any customers in New York or contract with any other company to distribute its elevator brakes to customers in New York. Instead, it sells its elevator brakes as component parts to other manufacturers which incorporate them into A.C. drives, which are then sold to other manufacturers that incorporate the A.C. drives containing the elevator brakes into elevator systems. Warner Europe also established that it has no knowledge of the end users of the elevator brakes, and that it does not sell replacement elevator brakes or component parts to the end-user customers who purchased the elevators into which they were incorporated. Warner Europe also established that its products were neither sold nor advertised online. Finally, Warner Europe showed that it has no real or personal property in New York, no registered agent or telephone number in New York, and no bank or investment account in New York, and that it does not advertise in New York. Thus, the record does not support a finding that Warner Europe knew or reasonably should have known that its manufacture and sale of elevator brakes would have a direct consequence in New York… such that long-arm jurisdiction could be exercised.

Moreover, the plaintiffs and the defendants that opposed Warner Europe’s motion to dismiss did not make a showing of a “sufficient start” to warrant the denial of the motion … . There is no basis to allow discovery to be conducted on the issue of personal jurisdiction since the opposing parties did not allege any facts which, if proven, would establish that Warner Europe may be subject to personal jurisdiction in New York … . Grandelli v Hope St. Holdings, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07386, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

, ,

JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT; ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court was without authority to dismiss (sua sponte) the complaint in this foreclosure action because (1) issue had not been joined, and (2) there was no evidence plaintiff failed to appear at a conference:

CPLR 3216(b)(1) states that no dismissal should be made under this statute unless issue has been joined. “A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met”  … . Here, none of the defendants submitted an answer to the complaint and, thus, issue was never joined (see CPLR 3216[b][1] …). “Since at least one precondition set forth in CPLR 3216 was not met here, the Supreme Court was without power to dismiss the action pursuant to that statute” … . …

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, where, as here, a party “appeared as scheduled, [22 NYCRR 202.27] provides no basis for the court to summarily dismiss the action” for failure to prosecute … . In general, “[t]he procedural device of dismissing a complaint for undue delay is a legislative creation, and courts do not possess the inherent power to dismiss an action for general delay where the plaintiff has not been served with a 90-day demand to serve and file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216(b) … . Bank of N.Y. v Harper, 2019 NY Slip Op 07378, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED BY DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted relief in this foreclosure action which was not requested by the defendant:

“The court may grant relief that is warranted pursuant to a general prayer for relief contained in a notice of motion if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, the defendants did not request an extension of time to answer, and the Supreme Court’s determination to, sua sponte, grant that relief was an improvident exercise of discretion. Indeed, to extend the time to answer the complaint, a defendant must generally provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . Here, the only excuse offered by the defendants for their default was the plaintiff’s alleged failure to properly serve them, which excuse was rejected by the Supreme Court. Further, the defendants did not proffer any potentially meritorious defense to the action. We note also that the court’s sua sponte determination to extend the time within which the defendants had to answer the complaint is fundamentally inconsistent with its determination to deny that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Since the judgment determined the action and the rights of the parties, allowing the defendants to interpose an answer was without practical import. U.S. Bank N.A. v Halevy, 2019 NY Slip Op 07438, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

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