You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , ,

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.

 

, , ,

WHERE, AS HERE, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE THE CONTESTED SALES TAX STATUTE IS “WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE” TO THEM, AND PLAINTIFFS SEEK A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO THAT EFFECT, THE “EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES” REQUIREMENT IS NOT RELEVANT (THRID DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined some of the plaintiffs had not failed to exhaust their administrative remedies in this action contesting the imposition of sales tax on the construction and demolition inspection services provided by plaintiffs. There is an exception to the “exhaustion of administrative remedies” requirement where, as here, plaintiffs claim the tax statute at issue is “wholly inapplicable” to them:

… [T]he remaining plaintiffs did not, as Supreme Court held, fail to exhaust their administrative remedies. Generally, a taxpayer must utilize statutory administrative remedies prior to commencing an action against the taxing entity … . That said, there is an exception to this requirement when, as relevant here, a tax statute is attacked as wholly inapplicable to the plaintiff … . “To challenge a statute as wholly inapplicable, the taxpayer must allege that the agency had no jurisdiction over it or the matter that was taxed” … . “This exception to the rule [mandating exhaustion of administrative remedies] is limited to those cases where no factual issue is raised” concerning the subject matter of the tax dispute … .

The remaining plaintiffs qualify for the “wholly inapplicable” exception, as the complaint alleges that DTF [Department of Taxation and Finance] lacks jurisdiction because Tax Law § 1105 (c) (8) does not apply to their site safety services. Further, there are no factual issues at play here. * * * … [T]he complaint simply seeks a declaration that site safety services, as specifically defined in the New York City Building Code, are exempt from sales tax … . Site Safety LLC v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2025 NY Slip Op 02255, Third Dept 4-17-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiffs alleged the relevant sales-tax statute was wholly inapplicable to them and sought a declaratory judgment to that effect. The proceeding therefore is excepted from the “exhaustion of administrative remedies” requirement.

 

, ,

ONLY THE COURT CHARGED WITH EMPANELING THE GRAND JURY CAN ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES; IN ORANGE COUNTY THE COURT CHARGED WITH EMPANELING GRAND JURIES IS COUNTY COURT; THEREFORE THE PETITON FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROHIBITING A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FROM ORDERING THE RELEASE OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department granted a petition for a writ of prohibition to prohibit a Supreme Court justice from ordering the release of grand jury minutes to the plaintiff in a civil action. Only the court charged with empaneling the grand jury, in this case County Court, can order release of the minutes:

The orders … directing the release of certain grand jury minutes in the subject criminal action and directing the clerk of the court to provide those minutes to the plaintiff’s counsel in the underlying civil action, are subject to prohibition for exceeding the Supreme Court’s authorized powers, as “only the court in charge of a Grand Jury may release testimony from the secrecy requirements of CPL 190.25(4)” … . In Orange County, only terms of the County Court have been charged with the empaneling of grand juries at the times relevant to this proceeding … , and as such, that was the court in charge of the grand jury in the subject criminal action, and the only court authorized to release those grand jury minutes … . Matter of Hoovler v Vazquez-Doles, 2025 NY Slip Op 02204, Secpmd Dept 5-16-25

Practice Point: If a Supreme Court justice issues an order which exceeds that court’s authorized powers, here an an order to release grand jury minutes to a plaintiff in a civil action, a petition for a writ of prohibition will be granted.

 

,

THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT RAISE A DEFECT IN SERVICE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE SUA SPONTE AND DISMISSED THE PROCEEDING ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, raised the propriety of service issue and dismissed the proceeding on that ground:

The Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the proceeding/action on the ground of a defect in service. Lack of personal jurisdiction is an affirmative defense that can be waived by, among other things, “appearing in an action, either formally or informally, without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss” … . “When a defendant participates in a lawsuit on the merits, he or she indicates an intention to submit to the court’s jurisdiction over the action, and by appearing informally in this manner, the defendant confers in personam jurisdiction on the court” … .

Since the respondents did not object to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over them in an answer or in their cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the petition/complaint, the court should not have, sua sponte, raised the issue of the propriety of service … . Further, the respondents waived any objection to the propriety of service by appearing in the proceeding/action and cross-moving to dismiss the petition/complaint without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction … . Matter of Weiss v County of Suffolk, 2025 NY Slip Op 02210, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: Defective service is an affirmative defense which, if not raised by a party, is waived. A judge cannot raise and decide the issue sua sponte.

 

, ,

HOME DEPOT RENTED A TRUCK TO A MAN WHO DROVE THE TRUCK INTO A CROWD OF PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS; THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT; THE MOTION COURT IMPROPERLY TREATED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT ARE DEEMED TRUE FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS, HERE THOSE ALLEGATIONS WERE PROPERLY REFUTED BY AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS SUBMITTED BY HOME DEPOT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs did not state a cause of action for negligent entrustment against defendant Home Depot, which rented a truck to Saipov, referred to in the decision as a “terrorist,”  who drove the truck into a crowd of pedestrians and bicyclists. The First Department noted that the motion court improperly treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. The First Department further noted that, although allegations in the complaint are deemed to be true for analysis of a motion to dismiss, affidavits and other documents submitted by a defendant can properly refute the allegations made in the complaint, and did so here:

… “[F]actual allegations presumed to be true on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 may properly be negated by affidavits and documentary evidence” … .

Plaintiffs’ complaints allege that Home Depot negligently entrusted the vehicle to Saipov when it knew or should have known that his use of the pickup truck could be potentially dangerous to others, and that it should have refused to rent it to him. These allegations, even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, do not state a cause of action for negligent entrustment. Moreover, documentary evidence as well as deposition testimony submitted by Home Depot conclusively refute these allegations.

… Home Depot established that it did not have “some special knowledge concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar” to Saipov which would render his use of the truck “unreasonably dangerous” … . Grandelli v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02154, First Dept 4-15-25

Practice Point: On a motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint are deemed to be true. However, those allegation can be negated by affidavits, depositions and other documents submitted by a defendant. The submission of such documents does not convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.

 

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