You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT AN AFFIRMATION DEMONSTRATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE DISCOVERY ISSUES; DEFENDANTS, IN THEIR MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AS A DISCOVERY SANCTION, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT-ORDERED DISCOVERY WAS “WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS;” DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO PRECLUDE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiff from offering evidence or responding to a dispositive motion as a discovery sanction should not have been granted for two reasons: (1) the defendants did not submit an affirmation demonstrating a good faith effort to resolve the discovery issues (22 MYCRR 202.t(a)); and (2), the defendants failed to demonstrate plaintiff’s failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious:

‘Pursuant to CPLR 3126, a court may impose discovery sanctions, including the . . . preclusion of evidence, where a party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed”‘” … . “Before a court invokes the drastic remedy of precluding a party from offering evidence at trial, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery was willful and contumacious” … . Here, the defendants failed to make a clear showing of a willful and contumacious failure by the plaintiff to comply with discovery demands. The defendants’ motion papers failed to identify precisely what discovery was demanded and never provided. In addition, the August 2022 order only referred vaguely to, among other things, “authorizations,” and the March 2024 order directed the plaintiff to submit “complete responses” to the defendants’ combined discovery demands without any indication of the nature of the alleged outstanding discovery. Under the circumstances, the defendants failed to make the requisite showing justifying the Supreme Court’s imposition of the subject discovery sanctions … . Noh Soon Park v Food Bazaar Supermarket, 2026 NY Slip Op 05108, Second Dept 8-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what a defendant must demonstrate to win a motion to preclude the plaintiff from presenting evidence as a sanction for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery.

 

,

HERE SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THERE WAS “GOOD CAUSE SHOWN” FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND THE EXTENSION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BEFORE THE TRAVERSE HEARING ON THE INITIAL ATTEMPT AT SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lasalle, determined the judge properly granted plaintiff an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint for “good cause shown. ” pursuant to CPLR 306-b. In addition, the judge properly granted the extension before holding the traverse hearing to determine the validity of the initial service of process:

… Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff established good cause. The plaintiff established reasonable diligence in ascertaining Brown’s [defendant’s] address. The plaintiff’s counsel reasonably relied upon the representation made by Brown in response to the information subpoena, and counsel confirmed those representations by conducting database inquiries. Moreover, the process server established that he acted with reasonable diligence in effecting service. In response, …

… Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting relief pursuant to CPLR 306-b before holding the traverse hearing [re: the initial attempt at service].. CPLR 306-b does not contain any language stating that a court must decide whether an initial attempt at service of process was valid before granting an extension of time to re-attempt service … . A court may, in the interests of judicial economy, grant an extension before holding a traverse hearing … . M&T Bank v Global Sign Cleaning & Maintenance, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 05092, Second Dept 8-25-26

Practice Point: This opinion fleshes out the criteria for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint “for good cause shown” pursuant to CPLR 306-b.

 

, ,

THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE “LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS” ELEMENT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED BY ALLEGATIONS MADE BASED ON “INFORMATION AND BELIEF;” AND THE “IRREPARABLE HARM” ELEMENT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY THE INJURY COULD NOT BE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY MONEY DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the criteria for a preliminary injunction were not met. The “likelihood of success” element was not demonstrated by allegations based upon “information and belief.” In addition plaintiff did not demonstrate the “irreparable harm” element because plaintiff failed to explain why money damages would not adequately compensate for the injury:

In an affidavit in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff’s statements … were made only upon “information and belief,” and the plaintiff submitted no evidence … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish irreparable harm. To establish irreparable harm, the plaintiff must demonstrate an injury for which money damages are insufficient … . Here, the plaintiff attested in his affidavit that, if the defendant were permitted to enforce the agreement, the defendant would be entitled to 100% of the plaintiff’s business’s revenue and the business would inevitably cease operation. The plaintiff … failed to demonstrate that this injury could not be adequately compensated by money damages. Culp v Silverline Servs., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 05077, Second Dept 8-26-26

 

,

A JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS AN ACTION FOR “NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE” UNLESS THE STATUTORY PREREQUISITES FOR DISMISSAL SPELLED OUT IN CPLR 3216 ARE MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the action for “neglect to prosecute.” CPLR 3216 spells out the conditions which must be met before dismissal of an action is appropriate:

The October 2024 order directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue 10 days prior to the inquest and noted that “[t]he failure to file a Note of Issue as directed or appear as directed may be deemed an abandonment of the claims giving rise to the Inquest.”

The plaintiff did not file the note of issue by the date of the inquest. In an order entered February 4, 2025, the Supreme Court, pursuant to the October 2024 order, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the action with prejudice. The plaintiff appeals.

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met” … . Pursuant to CPLR 3216(b), an action 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 [or her] for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … . The statute also requires “where, as here, a written demand to resume prosecution of the action is made by the court, ‘the demand shall set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court was without power to, sua sponte, direct dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, as the statutory prerequisites for dismissal under that statute were not met … . Avanza Group, LLC v Bugz Innovations, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 05068, SEcond Dept 8-26-26

Practice Point: Absent fulfilling the prerequisites for dismissal of an action for “neglect to prosecute” spelled out in CPLR 3216 a judge does not have the authority to dismiss on that ground.

 

, ,

HERE THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE COUNSEL REFUSED TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL ON A PARTICULAR DAY; THAT SINGLE INCIDENT DID NOT AMOUNT TO “NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE;” THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION FOR FILING A NEW COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the timely-commenced slip and fall case was not dismissed for failure to prosecute and the default did not constitute a determination on the merits. Therefore plaintiff’s filing of a new complaint within six months of the dismissal was timely:

When a prior action was timely commenced and dismissed on grounds other than voluntarily discontinuance, lack of personal jurisdiction, neglect to prosecute, or the entry of a final judgment on the merits, “CPLR 205(a) effectively tolls the running of a statutory period to permit refiling within six months” of the termination of the prior action … . Here, it is not disputed that the first action was timely commenced and that this action was commenced within six months of its termination.

… [T]he first action was not dismissed for “neglect to prosecute” within the meaning of CPLR 205(a). Where the dismissal of a prior action was for neglect to prosecute, in order to serve as a bar to the savings provision of CPLR 205(a), the court must have “set forth on the record the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … . Although the Supreme Court here set forth on the record that the plaintiff’s counsel had refused to proceed with the trial on one particular day, such conduct did not demonstrate a general “pattern” of delay in proceeding with the litigation so as to preclude application of CPLR 205(a) … .

Moreover, also contrary to the defendant’s contention, “dismissal of an action for a default pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 does not constitute a determination on the merits” … . Thus, the six-month extension afforded by CPLR 205(a) was applicable, and the instant action was timely commenced. Rivera v Waterview Towers, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 05041, Second Dept 8-19-26

Practice Point: To constitute a dismissal for failure to prosecute, the judge must place on the record the specific conduct demonstrating a general pattern of delay. Here the complaint was dismissed because counsel refused to proceed to trial on a particular day. That was not a dismissal for “failure to prosecute” and the six-month extension for filing a new complaint was available.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE DISMISSED FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PETITION BECAUSE MOTHER HAD PREVIOUSLY COMMENCED A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN FLORIDA; BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversed Family Court and remitted the matter. The Family Court judge dismissed the father’s New York custody petition on the ground mother had previously commenced a custody proceeding in Florida where she and the child resided. The judge, however, did not follow the procedures mandated by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act which must precede a ruling that one of the two courts is the most appropriate forum:

Pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (see Domestic Relations Law article 5-A), a New York court “may not exercise its jurisdiction” in a child custody proceeding “if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with [Domestic Relations Law article 5-A], unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[1] …). “If the court determines that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with [Domestic Relations Law article 5-A], the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[2]; see Domestic Relations Law § 77-f …). “If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with [Domestic Relations Law article 5-A] does not determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state shall dismiss the proceeding” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-e[2] …).

A court, acting pursuant to these provisions, must make a record of its communications with a court of another state on substantive matters, must promptly inform the parties of the communication, and grant the parties access to the record (see Domestic Relations Law § 75-i[4] …). The court may, in its discretion, allow the parties to participate in the communication, but “[i]f the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-i[2] …). Matter of Adames v Digangi, 2026 NY Slip Op 05022, Second Dept 8-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the statutory procedure mandated when a judge must decide which of two forums is appropriate for a custody proceeding. Here mother commenced a custody proceeding in Florida and father subsequently commenced a custody proceeding in New York.

 

, ,

THE TOWN PLACED A $24,000 LIEN ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY FOR REPAIR WORK DONE BY THE TOWN BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A PROCEDURAL-DUE-PROCESS ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN (42 USC 1983); THE ACTION FAILED BECAUSE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A CPLR ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town was entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 action alleging a violation of procedural due process. Plaintiff, after purchasing the property, was assessed over $24,000 for repairs to the property paid for by the town and necessitated by the prior owner’s failure to maintain the property. The procedural due process claim failed because plaintiff had the option of bringing an Article 78 proceeding:

“Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of ‘liberty’ or ‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment” … . “‘Due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands'” … . In determining what due process requires in a specific context, courts consider “(1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail” … .

Here, although the plaintiff’s property interest was affected by the special assessment and lien, the risk of erroneous deprivation was remedied by the availability of a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 … . Accordingly, the Town demonstrated, prima facie, that it did not deprive the plaintiff of due process … . First Sovereign Equity Group, Inc. v Town of Smithtown, 2026 NY Slip Op 04928, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: Here the risk of erroneous deprivation of plaintiff’s property by the town was remedied by the availability of a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Therefore the criteria for a viable procedural-due-process action against the town were not met.

 

, , , ,

APPARENTLY THE MORTGAGOR WAS DECEASED AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED RENDERING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION A NULLITY; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION, SO AMENDING THE CAPTION TO ADD THE EXECUTOR DID NOT EFFECTUATE JURISDICTION OVER THE ESTATE; ECHO BAY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE MORTGAGOR’S SUCCESSORS FOUR YEARS LATER; ECHO BAY HAD THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE, MOVE TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE, AND MOVE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, granting the motion to intervene and dismissing the foreclosure complaint, apparently determined the mortgagor was deceased at the time the foreclosure action was brought rendering the action a nullity. Therefore Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to amend the caption to add the mortgagor’s executor. For years later, Echo Bay purchased the property from the mortgagor’s successors and properly moved to intervene, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint:

“‘A party may not commence a legal action or proceeding against a dead person'” … , and an action to foreclose a mortgage is a legal nullity insofar as asserted against a deceased mortgagor … . “A judgment or order issued without subject matter jurisdiction is void, and that defect may be raised at any time and may not be waived” … . * * *

… [T]he fact that Echo Ray obtained its interest in the property after the action was commenced and the notice of pendency was filed does not bar intervention … , and that branch of the plaintiff’s prior motion which was for leave to amend the caption to substitute the executor of [mortgagor’s] estate as a defendant in this action did not effectuate jurisdiction over her estate … . * * *

… Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the motion of Echo Ray which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint, as the action was a legal nullity insofar as asserted against [the mortgagor], the sole borrower and property owner as alleged in the complaint … . The owner of the property is an indispensable party to a foreclosure action (see RPAPL 1311[1] …). “The absence of an indispensable party mandates dismissal of the action, and the plaintiff cannot maintain the action as against the other defendants” … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Jackson, 2026 NY Slip Op 04927, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: If the mortgagor is deceased when the foreclosure action is commenced, the action is a nullity and the judgment of foreclosure and sale is void. A subsequent purchaser of the property can successfully move to intervene, vacate the judgment and dismiss the foreclosure complaint.

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ RELIANCE ON THEIR ATTORNEY’S STATEMENT HE WOULD HANDLE THE MATTER, THE FACT THAT THE SEVERELY INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF, FOR WHOM DEFENDANTS WERE CARING, REQUIRED EXTRAORDINARY MEDICAL CARE AND FUNDRAISING, AND THE EXISTENCE OF A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE, WARRANTED GRANTING THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to vacate the default judgment (CPLR 5015(a)(1)) should have been granted. Defendants were under the impression their attorney was handling the case, they had a valid reason for failing to be more proactive in dealing with their attorney, and they had a meritorious affirmative defense:

Here, the defendants claimed that, upon receiving notice of the action in August 2023, they each contacted their family attorney, with whom the grandmother and the family had an 18-year relationship, and who was representing the mother in a child support proceeding against the plaintiff. The family attorney agreed to handle this matter. In a series of text messages to the defendants, the family attorney gave the impression that he was handling the matter and again indicated that such was the case when he met the defendants in person in reference to the child support proceeding. …

During these proceedings, the defendants were caring for the infant, who had suffered a brain injury and had been in the intensive care unit for approximately two months and required machines to help her breathe. The infant’s care involved hyberbaric and stem cell treatments from doctors in Louisiana and Arizona and fundraising to pay for her care.

The defendants each hired their current attorneys and promptly moved to vacate the March 2024 [default] order, alleging that the defendants’ reliance upon the representations of the family attorney constituted a reasonable excuse for their default and further alleging … an affirmative defense … .

… [U]nder the particular circumstances of this case, the defendants’ conduct in relying upon the representations of the family attorney did not constitute willful default or neglect … . Further, the defendants’ responsibilities in caring for the infant provided a reasonable explanation for their failure to be more proactive in their dealings with the family attorney and in the management of this action … . Cross v Lee, 2026 NY Slip Op 04924, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: Here defendants’ reliance on their attorney’s assurances he was handling the matter, the severity of the infant plaintiff’s injuries (the defendants were caring for the infant), and the existence of a meritorious defense, warranted granting defendants’ motion to vacate the default judgment (CPLR 5051(a)(1)).

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CORPORATE DEFENDANT ALLEGED TO BE “UNITED IN INTEREST” WITH A NAMED CORPORATE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relation-back doctrine applied to allow adding a defendant after the statute of limitations had run. Plaintiff slipped and fell on some wires in her office and sued a company called Blackbox Corporation (apparently alleging responsibility for the presence of wires). Plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add another company, Nu-Vision, alleging it was “united in interest” with Blackbox:

In order to establish the applicability of the relation-back doctrine, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: “(1) the causes of action arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (2) the new party is united in interest with one or more of the original defendants, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that he or she will not be prejudiced in maintaining his or her defense on the merits; and (3) the new defendant knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been commenced against him or her as well” … .. “The ‘linchpin’ of the relation-back doctrine is whether the new defendant had notice within the applicable limitations period” … .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff demonstrated the applicability of the relation-back doctrine. As to the first prong, there is no dispute that the plaintiff sought to allege causes of action against Nu-Vision arising out of the same occurrence as the causes of action asserted in the amended complaint. The plaintiff also established the second prong, that Nu-Vision and Black Box Corporation of Pennsylvania were “united in interest,” by demonstrating that, under the particular circumstances presented, Nu-Vision and Black Box Corporation of Pennsylvania “intentionally or not, often blurred the distinction between them” … . As to the third prong, the plaintiff sufficiently established that Nu-Vision knew or should have known that, but for a mistake, it would have been named as a defendant … .   Tomlinson v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 04973, Second Dept 8-12-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was allowed to amend the complaint to add a corporate defendant after the statute of limitations had passed pursuant to the relation-back doctrine. The added defendant was deemed to be “united in interest” with a named corporate defendant.

 

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