You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, HAVE RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SERVICE BY MAIL WHICH WERE NOT RAISED OR ADDRESSED BY THE PARTIES; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR WHICH LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT SOUGHT, WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the judge should not have raised, sua sponte, issues not raised by the parties in granting defendants’ (the Wirths’) motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The process server filed an affidavit stating that the summons and complaint had been timely mailed to defendants. The affidavit did not state that the envelope was marked “personal and confidential” or that the envelope indicated it was from an attorney. There was no proof the envelope was not properly marked and the defendants had not raised these issues. The defendants merely asserted they never received the mailing. The Second Department also determined the amended complaint, adding additional parties, was a nullity because the court did not grant leave to amend:

Given that the Wirths argued that they did not receive the summons and complaint in the mail, the Supreme Court should not have determined, sua sponte, that jurisdiction was not acquired over the Wirths because the process server did not attest that the mailed copies of the summons and complaint were contained in an envelope bearing the legend “personal and confidential” and not indicating on the outside thereof that the communication is from an attorney or concerns an action against the person to be served (see CPLR 308[2] …). Courts are “not in the business of blindsiding litigants,” who expect the courts to decide issues on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments that were never made … . By raising the CPLR 308(2) envelope requirement on its own, the court deprived the plaintiffs of the opportunity to show compliance with that requirement. …

CPLR 3025(a) provides that a “party may amend his [or her] pleading once without leave of court within twenty days after its service, or at any time before the period for responding to it expires, or within twenty days after service of a pleading responding to it.” A plaintiff’s failure to seek leave pursuant to CPLR 1003 to add a new defendant is a jurisdictional defect, and an amended complaint that is not filed in accordance with CPLR 1003 and 3025 is a legal nullity … . Hulse v Wirth, 2019 NY Slip Op 06483, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WITHIN 120 DAYS OF FILING AND PLAINTIFF DID NOT FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WITH THE CLERK, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction was properly granted. Defendant alleged he was not served with the summons and complaint within 120 days of filing and plaintiff had not filed an affidavit of service with the clerk of the court:

While the failure to timely file an affidavit of service with the clerk of the court as required by CPLR 308(4) may, in the absence of prejudice, be corrected by court order pursuant to CPLR 2004 … , in this case, the plaintiff failed to seek such relief, and the Supreme Court declined to extend this time sua sponte … . Accordingly, we agree with the court’s determination to grant that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction … . Zheleznyak v Gordon & Gordon, P.C., 2019 NY Slip Op 06536, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BECAUSE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS MADE; THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONDITIONAL ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AN UNAUTHORIZED SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ON APPEAL TO WHICH THE PARTIES STIPULATED WAS NOT CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the conditional order upon which dismissal of the complaint was based was not authorized because issue had not been joined at the time the order was made. Therefore the bank’s motion to vacate the conditional order in this foreclosure action should have been granted. However, because of the two year delay in moving to vacate the order, the bank is not entitled to interest, late charges, fees, costs and attorney’s fees incurred after the date of the 2014 conditional order. An unauthorized supplemental record on appeal, which was stipulated to by the parties, contained material that was not in the record and was not considered by the Second Department:

A pleading cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) “unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought’ in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … . While a conditional order of dismissal may have “the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216” … , the conditional order here was defective in that it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice will serve as a basis for a motion by the court to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute … . Additionally, it appears that the complaint was ministerially dismissed, without a motion, and without the entry of any formal order by the court dismissing the complaint … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Spence, 2019 NY Slip Op 06529, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, , ,

HEARSAY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT ADMISSIBLE AS ADMISSIONS OR BUSINESS RECORDS; THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE PROHIBITED TESTIMONY ABOUT THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case and ordering a new trial, determined that hearsay statements to the effect that plaintiff’s decedent had signed an “against medical advice [AMA]” form when he allegedly refused treatment at defendant hospital were not admissible under the Dead Man’s Statute or as statements against interest or admissions, or as business records:

“A hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient” ( … see CPLR 4518[a]). Here, although the entries were germane to the decedent’s diagnosis and treatment, the defendants failed to offer foundational testimony under CPLR 4518(a) or certification under CPLR 4518(c) … . …

If an entry in the medical records “is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to the diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is evidence connecting the party to the entry'”  … . Here … the entry clearly states that the decedent’s primary care physician, not the decedent himself, was the source of the information … . …

Pursuant to CPLR 4519, otherwise known as the Dead Man’s Statute, “[u]pon the trial of an action . . . a party or a person interested in the event . . . shall not be examined as a witness in his [or her] own behalf or interest . . . against the executor, administrator or survivor of a deceased person or the committee of a mentally ill person . . . concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and the deceased person or mentally ill person, except where the executor, administrator, survivor, committee or person so deriving title or interest is examined in his [or her] own behalf, of the testimony of the mentally ill person or deceased person is given in evidence, concerning the same transaction or communication.” Here, both [witnesses] were defendants at the time they gave deposition testimony, making them interested parties under the statute … [and] they both testified to transactions or communications with the decedent and sought to offer that testimony against the decedent’s estate. …

The defendants argue that the plaintiff waived the protections of the Dead Man’s Statute by eliciting the communications at issue. However, “[t]he executor does not waive rights under the statute by taking the opponent’s deposition” … . … Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the declaration of the decedent did not fall within the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule because the defendants failed to establish that the subject statement was against the decedent’s interest when made … . Moreover, where the Dead Man’s Statute renders a witness’s testimony inadmissible, “the fact that the testimony would fall within an exception to the hearsay rule is simply irrelevant” … . Grechko v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 06478, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING; THEREFORE THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED IN 2008 AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE DID NOT START RUNNING; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s action to cancel and discharge a mortgage on the ground the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action had expired was properly dismissed. Although the bank had attempted to foreclose in 2008, that action was dismissed for lack of standing. Therefore the debt was not accelerated by the 2008 foreclosure proceedings:

Pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4), a person having an estate or an interest in real property subject to a mortgage can seek to cancel and discharge that encumbrance where the period allowed by the applicable statute of limitations for the commencement of an action to foreclose the mortgage has expired, provided that the mortgagee or its successor was not in possession of the subject real property at the time the action to cancel and discharge the mortgage was commenced … . An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[4]). “[E]ven if a mortgage is payable in installments, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the Statute of Limitations begins to run on the entire debt” … . However, “an acceleration of a mortgaged debt, by either written notice or the commencement of an action, is only valid if the party making the acceleration had standing at that time to do so”  … .

Here, the evidence submitted in support of the defendants’ motion, including the order dated December 13, 2011, demonstrated that while CitiGroup purported to accelerate the mortgage debt in the complaint served in the action to foreclose the mortgage in January 2008, that acceleration was a nullity, inasmuch as CitiGroup lacked standing to commence that foreclosure action … . Therefore, the plaintiff’s allegation in this action that the statute of limitations to enforce the mortgage had expired was not a fact at all, and it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it … . Q & O Estates Corp. v US Bank Trust Nat’l Assoc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06524, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

FAILURE TO TIMELY MAIL THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AFTER SERVICE AT DEFENDANT’S BUSINESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 308 (2) IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH IS NOT CURED BY LATE MAILING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s failure to timely mail a copy of the summons and complaint after serving the documents at defendant’s place of business was a jurisdictional defect which was not cured by late mailing:

A mailing sent within the wrong time frame, like a mailing sent by the wrong method , increases the likelihood that a party will not receive proper notice of a legal proceeding. The first 20-day window set forth in CPLR 308(2) serves an important function. If the delivery and mailing required …  that statute are not made within a short time of one another, there is a greater likelihood that one or both sets of pleadings will be mislaid, or, at the very least, that confusion will arise as to how much time the defendant has to respond—both of which appear to have occurred here. Further, the requirement that an affidavit of service be filed within 20 days of the delivery or mailing, whichever is effected later, also serves an important function. Timely filing of the affidavit of service is designed to give notice as to the plaintiff’s claim of service and permit the defendant to calculate the time to answer. Where the affidavit of service claims that delivery but not mailing occurred within the 20-day period, yet the plaintiff intends to later claim that a timely mailing did occur, additional confusion is created, a defendant may be prejudiced by reliance upon the publicly filed affidavit which only partially disclosed the plaintiff’s claim of service, and such prejudice may preclude the prospect that the failure to file the affidavit could be cured … . Estate of Norman Perlman v Kelley, 2019 NY Slip Op 06475, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

THE DEPOSIT OF FULL PAYMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN A COURT MONITORED ESCROW ACCOUNT DID NOT STOP THE ACCRUAL OF POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the deposit of full payment of judgments placed in a court monitored escrow account were subject to the accrual of post-judgment interest:

Defendants’ deposit of full payment on the judgments entered against it to a court monitored escrow account (the Monitorship Account) was not unconditional, such that it did not stop the accrual of post-judgment interest … . Although the Monitorship Order expressly directed the Monitor to collect the judgment amounts and expressly provides for the collection of “pre- and post-judgment interest,” such funds could not be further transferred until further order of the court. Moreover, the Monitorship Order reflects that the parties were not waiving “any rights, defenses or claims not set forth in the agreed order” by stipulating to the appointment of such Monitor. Accordingly, defendants’ payment to the Monitorship Account was conditioned on defendants preserving both their defenses to plaintiff’s claims, and defendants’ direct claims to those funds.

Contrary to defendants’ arguments, the payment to the Monitorship Account was not a “deposit to the court,” as it was not “pursuant to an order of the court, made upon motion” (CPLR 5021[a][3]). Rather under the circumstances, the Monitorship Account functioned simply as an escrow account while the defendants continued to oppose plaintiff’s claims and pursue their own. Triadou SPV S.A. v CF 135 Flat LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06453, First Dept 9-10-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAIVED THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY PLACING THE CONDITION OF HER KNEES INTO CONTROVERSY IN THIS ACCIDENT CASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined plaintiff had placed the condition of her knees into controversy in this accident case and defendants were therefore entitled to discovery re: prior treatment of her knees. The facts were not discussed:

Plaintiff affirmatively placed the condition of her knees into controversy through allegations that the underlying accident caused difficulties in walking and standing that affect her ambulatory capacity and resultant damages … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, plaintiff therefore waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to the prior treatment of her knees and the discovery sought by authorizations pertaining to the treatment of plaintiff’s knees is “material and necessary” to defendants’ defense of the action (CPLR 3101 [a]). Accordingly, Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to provide discovery related to the prior treatment of her knees. Brito v Gomez, 2019 NY Slip Op 06452, CtApp 9-10-19

 

, ,

COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 BECAUSE NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WAS NOT WARRANTED, BUT PRECLUSION OF FURTHER DISCOVERY WAS APPROPRIATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the court did not have authority to dismiss the medical malpractice action pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute in the absence of a 90-notice. The court further noted that, although dismissal for failure to comply with discovery demands was not warranted, the preclusion of further discovery was appropriate:

With regard to CPLR 3216, “the courts have no authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, whether on the ground of general delay, or for failure to serve and file a note of issue, unless there has first been served a [90 day notice]” … . Here, it is undisputed that neither the Supreme Court nor the defendant served the requisite 90-day notice upon the plaintiff. …

… . [D]smissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) was unwarranted as a sanction for the plaintiff’s failure to limit his disclosure demands. The remedy of dismissal is “only warranted where there has been a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands was willful and contumacious” … . The sanction of dismissal is available for the willful and contumacious failure to disclose … , which did not occur here. The plaintiff submitted to a deposition by the defendants. However, the lengthy pendency of this action, the dispute over the plaintiff’s overbroad demands for disclosure, and his refusal to tailor those demands in accordance with prior orders of the court, compels the conclusion that further disclosure has been forfeited. Rezk v New York Presbyt. Hospital/N.Y. Weill Cornell Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 06426, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

, ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET MOVED TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR HER COMATOSE HUSBAND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion to dismiss the medical malpractice action should not have been granted on the ground plaintiff had not moved pursuant to CPLR 1202 to be appointed guardian ad litem for her comatose husband (Zheng) prior to commencing the action:

… [T]he mere fact that this action was commenced before the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 1202 to be appointed guardian ad litem of her husband does not provide grounds for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3). An incapacitated individual who has not been judicially declared incompetent may sue or be sued in the same manner as any other person … , and CPLR 1202(a) expressly contemplates that a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem may be made “at any stage in the action.” Thus, there is no strict legal requirement that the plaintiff should have been appointed guardian before the commencement of this action. While it would have been better for the action to have been commenced in Zheng’s name, rather than by the plaintiff “as Proposed Guardian Ad Litem of [Zheng],” the defect is not fatal, particularly given the relatively short delay between the commencement of the action and the filing of the plaintiff’s guardianship motion (see CPLR 2001). Linghua Li v Xiao, 2019 NY Slip Op 06388, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

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