You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

THE NEW JERSEY TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVED NEW YORK RESIDENTS (PLAINTIFFS), A TRUCK LEASED BY DEFENDANT NEW JERSEY CORPORATION AND THE DEFENDANT TRUCK DRIVER FROM PENNSYLVANIA; NO GENERAL PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION OR THE DRIVER; POSSIBLE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION, BUT NOT THE DRIVER, BASED UPON BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied all but one of the defendants’ motions to dismiss premised on lack of personal jurisdiction, pending further discovery. The traffic accident happened in New Jersey. The plaintiffs’ van was struck from behind by a freight truck leased by Finkle (a New Jersey corporation) from Ryder Truck Rental and driven by defendant Larios, a resident of Pennsylvania. All the plaintiffs were residents of New York. The Second Department found that there was no general jurisdiction under CPLR 301, and no long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a])(3) (tortious act outside the state causing injury within the state). However there may jurisdiction against Finkle pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) (conducting business within the state):

… [Plaintiffs] have not alleged facts in opposition which would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under New York’s general jurisdiction statute, CPLR 301, over Larios, who was not domiciled in New York, or over Finkle, which was not incorporated in New York and did not have its principal place of business in New York … . …

Under CPLR 302(a)(3), “[t]he situs of the injury is the location of the original event which caused the injury, not the location where the resultant damages are subsequently felt by the plaintiff” … . Here, since the accident which caused the injuries occurred in New Jersey, CPLR 302(a)(3) does not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction over these defendants in New York … .

… .Finkle asserted that it is a New Jersey corporation with its business address in New Jersey, and Larios stated that, at the time of the accident, he was transporting a load for the United States Postal Service within the State of New Jersey. However, Finkle admitted that it had terminals at four New York locations at which it parked its vehicles. Based upon these facts, and given Finkle’s failure to submit trip logs, manifests, or other documentary evidence to support its assertion that the load Larios was transporting was being shipped within the State of New Jersey and had no relationship to Finkle’s New York business, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny as premature that branch of the appellants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Finkle, with leave to renew upon completion of discovery. Qudsi v Larios, 2019 NY Slip Op 04742, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND EXPERT EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS DIVERTED WATER ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD WHICH FORMED A PATCH OF BLACK ICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s request to enter the Rizzetta defendants’ property to allow inspection and expert examination of the alleged diversion of water from the property onto a public road should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured riding his bicycle when he hit a patch of black ice, slipped and fell:

CPLR 3120(1)(ii) provides that a party may serve another party with notice “to permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession, custody or control of the party served for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, sampling, testing, photographing or recording by motion pictures or otherwise the property or any specifically designated object or operation thereon.” Motions seeking such discovery “are routinely granted when a central issue in the case is the condition of the real property under inspection” … . …

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion. A central issue in this litigation is the source of the water which allegedly caused the injury-producing ice condition. An owner of private land abutting a public roadway may be liable for injuries sustained from a fall on ice on the public roadway, if the “ice condition was caused and created by the artificial diversion of naturally flowing water from the private landowner’s property onto the public roadway” … . The plaintiff’s theory of the Rizzetta defendants’ liability is premised upon the Rizzetta defendants’ alleged diversion of water from their property onto the public roadway. Although the probative value of the inspection may be weakened by the passage of time since the accident occurred, such delay is not a basis for denying the plaintiff’s discovery request where, as here, the inspection may still aid the parties in preparation for trial … . Zupnick v City of New Rochelle, 2019 NY Slip Op 04754, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

, , ,

PORTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS’ APPRAISAL REPORT IN THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK BECAUSE THE PROPER VALUATION METHOD WAS USED; THE EVIDENTIARY RULING ON THE MOTION IN LIMINE IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE THE RULING AFFECTS THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the portions of motion in limine seeking to strike parts of respondents’ appraisal report in this condemnation proceeding should not have been granted. The court noted that the evidentiary ruling was appealable because it limited the scope of the trial issues. The court further noted that the proof of valuation offered at trial must be limited to the valuation method(s) described in the appraisal report:

Where, as here, “the highest and best use is the one the property presently serves and that use is income-producing, then the capitalization of income is a proper method of valuation” … . In our view, the stricken portion of respondents’ appraisal report, although titled “investment valuation,” applied an income capitalization approach using the standard income capitalization formula, i.e., value equals net income divided by a capitalization rate … , and applied factors that, according to respondents’ appraiser, accurately reflect the property’s value and would make the property more appealing to prospective purchasers. To the extent that petitioner contends that certain factors considered by respondents’ appraiser in valuing the property do not accurately reflect market value, “[t]he fact that some aspects of the valuation methodology [of respondents’ appraiser] may be subject to question goes to the weight to be accorded the appraisal[],” not its admissibility … . … Matter of Rochester Genesee Regional Transp. Auth. v Stensrud, 2019 NY Slip Op 04612, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

,

NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS CONTAINING INCORRECT INFORMATION (I.E., DISCOVERY WAS COMPLETE) SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED; STIPULATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY WAS SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT TRADE SECRETS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the motion to vacate the note of issue and a certificate of readiness because the information therein was not correct (discovery was not complete). The court further determined that the confidentiality stipulation was sufficient to protect trade secrets during discovery:

… [C]ontrary to the statements on the certificate of readiness, discovery was incomplete when the note of issue and certificate of readiness were filed. Thus, “a material fact in the certificate of readiness [was] incorrect,” and the note of issue and certificate of readiness must be vacated … . …

… [D]efendants requested that the court issue a protective order that included the designation of a third-party neutral expert and an “attorney and expert eyes only” designation for disclosure. The court denied defendants’ request, and directed the parties to execute a confidentiality stipulation and order and to proceed with discovery pursuant to Rule 11-g of the Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court (see 22 NYCRR 202.70). The confidentiality stipulation and order provides, inter alia, that “Confidential Information shall be utilized by the Receiving Party and its Counsel only for purposes of this litigation and for no other purposes. Any violation of this Stipulation and Order may be enforced as a contempt of Court.” We conclude that the court provided defendants with adequate protection of their intellectual property and trade secrets. Backer & Assoc., LLC v PPB Eng’g & Sys. Design, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04541, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE ACCRUED, THEREFORE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s failed to demonstrate when the lead-paint-exposure cause of action accrued. Therefore the motion for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of limitations had passed should not have been granted:

In moving to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitations grounds, each defendant had “the initial burden of establishing prima facie that the time in which to sue ha[d] expired . . . and thus was required to establish, inter alia, when the plaintiff[s’] cause of action accrued” …  Here, neither defendant established the relevant accrual date of plaintiffs’ claims for injury caused by the latent effects of lead paint exposure and, in the absence of such evidence, neither defendant made a prima facie showing that the applicable limitations period had expired on those claims … . Supreme Court thus erred in granting defendants’ respective motions to that extent. We note that, at oral argument in these appeals, plaintiffs conceded that their claims for patent injuries arising from such exposure were properly dismissed as time-barred. Chaplin v Tompkins, 2019 NY Slip Op 04562, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND VACATED THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DEEMED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, held that Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and vacated the default judgment as untimely, Plaintiff had timely moved for a default judgment. Although sua sponte orders are not appealable as of right, the First Department deemed the notice of appeal as a motion for leave to appeal:

An order issued sua sponte is not appealable as of right (see Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]). However, given the nature of the motion court’s sua sponte relief in dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), we deem the notice of appeal to be a motion for leave to appeal, and grant such leave (…CPLR 5701[c]).

The record is clear that plaintiff had moved for a default judgment within one year, and thus, the motion court’s sua sponte vacature of the judgment and dismissal of the complaint as untimely was in error … . In view of this decision, the merits of defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment are no longer moot and it is remanded back to the trial court for consideration on the merits. New Globaltex Co., Ltd. v Zhe Lin, 2019 NY Slip Op 04456, First Dept 6-6-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (SERVICE UPON THE SECRETARY OF STATE) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs did not demonstrate compliance with the service of process requirements of the Limited Liability Company Law:

“The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process” … . Proof of service, often in the form of an affidavit of service (see CPLR 306 [d]), must include “the papers served, the person who was served and the date, time [and] address [of such service], . . . and set forth facts showing that the service was made by an authorized person and in an authorized manner” … . Additionally, “[b]ecause service of process is necessary to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants, courts require strict compliance with the statutory methods of service” … . As relevant here, “[s]ervice of process on the secretary of state as agent of a domestic limited liability company . . . shall be made by personally delivering to and leaving with the secretary of state or his or her deputy, or with any person authorized by the secretary of state to receive such service, . . . duplicate copies of such process together with the statutory fee” … . …

Although plaintiffs proffered an unsigned receipt of service purportedly generated by the Office of the Secretary of State, that receipt did not set forth the papers served, whether duplicate copies of those papers were delivered to the Secretary of State, the time of service or facts showing that service was made by an authorized person (see Limited Liability Company Law § 303 [a]; CPLR 306 [a], [d]). Cedar Run Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v Adirondack Dev. Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04528, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

, ,

THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS PROPERLY ENFORCED A TOWN RESOLUTION WHICH PROHIBITED CONNECTING A WATER MAIN SERVICING AN AGRICULTURAL AREA TO A NEW RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION; THE DEVELOPERS WERE ‘INTERESTED PERSONS’ AND WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THE COMMISSIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION TO ENFORCE THE TOWN RESOLUTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets, had the authority to enforce a 2004 Town Board resolution which restricted the use of water provided by a water main to existing residential uses and agricultural uses. In 2016 the Town Board passed a resolution allowing a connection with the water main to service a new residential subdivision. The Commissioner brought an Article 78 proceeding to enforce the 2004 resolution and the developers of the residential subdivision were properly allowed to intervene:

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the developers to intervene. Petitioner may well be correct that the developers do not have standing to bring suit to challenge his determination, but “[t]he bases for permissive intervention are broader than they are for standing to originate the proceeding” … . The developers have property interests that will be impacted should petitioner succeed … and all share the view of the Town and respondent Town Supervisor that petitioner lacks authority to enforce restrictions on water main access that the Town Board later attempts to vitiate. In our view, this is sufficient to render them “interested persons” who can at least intervene with regard to that portion of the petition/complaint founded upon CPLR article 78 … . …

A local government enjoys broad autonomy under “the ‘home rule’ provision of the New York Constitution,” but that autonomy does not extend to actions “that conflict with the State Constitution or any general law” (…see NY Const, art IX, § 2 [c] [ii]; Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 [1]). Among the general laws of New York is Agriculture and Markets Law article 25-AA, which “was enacted upon a finding that many of the agricultural lands in New York state are in jeopardy of being lost for any agricultural purposes due to local land use regulations inhibiting farming, as well as various other deleterious side effects resulting from the extension of nonagricultural development into farm areas” … . …

Petitioner was … within his rights to order the Town to comply with the 2004 resolution following an investigation and, upon the Town’s failure to seek review of his determination and refusal to comply with it, commence the present enforcement litigation … . Matter of Ball v Town of Ballston, 2019 NY Slip Op 04519, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

, ,

THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE CREATED BY THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT WAS REBUTTED BY DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT CLAIMING THAT THE PLACE WHERE SERVICE WAS MADE HAD NO CONNECTION WITH HIM OR HIS BUSINESS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether the defendant corporation, Advanced, and its principal, Trimarco, were properly served with the summons and complaint. The presumption of proper service created by the process server’s affidavit was rebutted by Trimarco’s affidavit stating that the place where service was made, and any person at that location, had no connection to him or the business:

Trimarco submitted an affidavit in which he claimed that both he and Advanced were improperly served at a residence that he had “sold to an unrelated third party three years ago.” He further averred that, on the date service was purportedly made, he had no relationship with any person at [the residence], and no person at that address was authorized to accept service on behalf of Advanced. …

The Supreme Court should not have, in effect, denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint without first conducting a hearing. “Ordinarily, a process server’s affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service and, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service” … . “[W]here there is a sworn denial that a defendant was served with process, the affidavit of service is rebutted, and the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction at a hearing by a preponderance of the evidence” … .

With respect to service on Advanced, CPLR 311(a)(1) provides that personal service upon a corporation shall be made, among other ways, “to an officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service.” Personal service on a corporation must be made to one of the persons authorized by the statute to accept service, and an attempt to serve such person by substitute service pursuant to CPLR 308(2) or (4) will be insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation … . …

With respect to service on Trimarco, CPLR 308(2) provides, in relevant part, that service may be made upon a natural person “by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served.” Here, Trimarco’s detailed affidavit, in which he claimed that the address where service was made was not his actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode, was sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the plaintiff’s affidavit of service … . Finnegan v Trimarco, 2019 NY Slip Op 04361, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAD THE RIGHT FILE A SECOND MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE ACTION TO FORECLSOE ON THE LIEN RAISED THE SAME ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED IN A PRIOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE PRECLUDED THE SECOND ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the subcontractor’s action seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien was precluded by the doctrine of res judicata, despite its being based on theories different from those raised in the prior action:

“Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action” … . ” [O]nce a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'” … . Accordingly, “a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding” … .

While a subcontractor may have the right to file a second mechanic’s lien within the statutory time period, at least to cure an irregularity in a lien first filed, or to reassert a lien when the prior one has been lost by delay in its enforcement …, a second mechanic’s lien is not immune from the doctrine of res judicata. Although the plaintiff framed its causes of action in the 2014 action as breach of contract and unjust enrichment causes of action, and its cause of action in this action as one to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, these are merely different theories for the plaintiff’s cause of action to recover monies allegedly owed to it under the subcontract. County Wide Flooring, Corp. v Town of Huntington, 2019 NY Slip Op 04354, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

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