You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER REQUIRING A FORECLOSURE AFFIRMATION AND A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED RETROACTIVELY, A STIPULATION AWARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IGNORED, THE IMPROPER APPLICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER RAISED A MATTER OF LAW THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the plaintiff bank’s motion to vacate a dismissal of a foreclosure action should have been granted. Supreme Court had improperly applied an administrative order (AO 548/10) requiring a “Foreclosure Affirmation/Certificate of Merit” that was not in effect at the time the bank made its motion for summary judgment. The parties had entered a stipulation which awarded the bank summary judgment in return for waiver of its right to seek a deficiency judgment. The court noted that the improper retroactive application of AO 548/10 could be raised for the first time on appeal because it is a question of law that could not be avoided if it had been raised at the proper time:

“[A] court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interest of substantial justice”… . “A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court” … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … .

Here, equity and justice require vacatur of the dismissal order in the interests of substantial justice … . Countrywide Bank, FSB v Singh, 2019 NY Slip Op 04353, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

A DISMISSAL BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR TO OPPOSE A MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE HAS NO RES JUDICATA EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the prior dismissal of plaintiff’s action because the plaintiff failed to appear in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss was not a determination on the merits and therefore has no res judicata effect:

The plaintiff had commenced a prior action against, among others, the defendants, and the complaint in that action was dismissed insofar as asserted against them upon the plaintiff’s failure to appear in opposition to their motion to dismiss. An order entered upon a party’s default in appearing to oppose a motion to dismiss is not a determination on the merits … . Where a dismissal does not involve a determination on the merits, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply … . Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to bar the instant action … . Abdelfattah v Najar, 2019 NY Slip Op 04346, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION ENTERED BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT REQUIRING MONTHLY USE AND OCCUPANCY PAYMENTS OF OVER $100,000 DURING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM THE LANDLORD’S NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY REDUCED THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO ZERO BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE TENANT WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED WORTHLESS BY THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, AS OPPOSED TO THE FAIR MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE LANDLORD’S PERSPECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the stipulation entered by plaintiff tenant and defendant landlord, pursuant to a Yellowstone Injunction, should not have modified by the judge. The defendant landlord notified plaintiff of several alleged defaults under the lease, and subsequently notified tenant of the termination of the lease. Plaintiff tenant sued defendant landlord and moved for a Yellowstone injunction which the court ordered. The parties entered a so-ordered stipulation requiring plaintiff tenant to pay over $100,000 per month for use and occupancy of the property during the court proceedings. More than a year later plaintiff tenant moved to move to modify the stipulation to reduce the monthly use and occupancy payments and the court reduced the payments to zero:

The so-ordered November 2015 stipulation was negotiated by the parties and accepted by the Supreme Court, and, as a result, may be considered a court order … . “Although the Supreme Court retains inherent discretionary power to relieve a party from a judgment or order for sufficient reason and in the interest of substantial justice, [a] court’s inherent power to exercise control over its judgment is not plenary, and should be resorted to only to relieve a party from judgments taken through [fraud], mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” … . Nevertheless, “[u]nder almost any given state of facts, where to enforce a stipulation would be unjust or inequitable or permit the other party to gain an unconscionable advantage, courts will afford relief” … . …

Although the landlord generally has the burden of proving the amount owed by the tenant … , here, it was the plaintiff’s burden, on its motion to modify the “September 22, 2015 order, as amended,” to demonstrate that the payment of use and occupancy in the amount of $111,041.66 per month was unjust.

In concluding that the subject property had no value “as long as the Notice of Default remains on the property,” the Supreme Court erroneously considered the value to the plaintiff of using and occupying the subject property after the lease was purportedly terminated, instead of considering the fair market rental value of the subject property, namely, the amount that a prospective commercial tenant would be willing to pay to lease the subject property from the defendant … . 255 Butler Assoc., LLC v 255 Butler, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04344, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, , ,

THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF VARIANCES BY THE ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER DID NOT PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, UNDER THE CPLR THE RESPONDENT MUST PROVIDE THE TRANSCRIPT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking review of the zoning board’s denial of variances should not have been dismissed on the ground that petitioner did not provide a transcript of the proceedings. CPLR 7804 requires that the respondent provide the transcript:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the grounds that the petitioner had not provided “a copy of a transcript from the proceeding, . . . any of the submissions that he may have made in support of the requests, including the applications for any variances themselves” and had “also not provided an affidavit from a person with knowledge in support of [his] petition.”

CPLR 7804(d) permits, but does not require, the petitioner to submit affidavits or other written proof in support of the verified petition. Further, CPLR 7804(e) provides that the respondent, not the petitioner, “shall file with the answer a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings under consideration, unless such a transcript has already been filed with the clerk of the court.” Matter of D’Souza v Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, 2019 NY Slip Op 04381, Second Dept 6-5-10

 

, ,

INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE, THE APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ON THE JOB INJURY CASE ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT WAS PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL EMPLOYER AND PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that information provided for the first time in a reply affidavit could not be relied upon to sustain a movant’s prima facie burden for a summary judgment motion. The plaintiff, who was injured on the job, alleged he was hired by the defendant Bright Star Messenger Service, LLC (hereinafter the appellant). In its motion for summary judgment the appellant alleged it was plaintiff’s general employer and plaintiff’s only remedy was Workers’ Compensation. But included in appellant’s papers was plaintiff’s claim for Worker’s Compensation benefits which listed plaintiff’s employer as “Bright Star Courier.” Therefore the appellant failed to make out a prima facie case that it was plaintiff’s employer. The appellant then submitted a reply affidavit stating that Bright Star Courier had changed its name to Bright Star Messenger Center, LLC prior to the accident:

… Contrary to the appellant’s contention, it failed to make a prima facie showing that it was the plaintiff’s general employer. The appellant submitted the affidavit of a representative of the appellant, who stated that the plaintiff was employed by the appellant on the date of the accident, and that the appellant had procured workers’ compensation insurance for the plaintiff. However, the appellant also submitted Workers’ Compensation Board records showing that the plaintiff had filed a claim for benefits that listed the plaintiff’s employer as “Bright Star Courier.” Under these circumstances, the appellant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it was the plaintiff’s general employer … . While the appellant submitted a reply affidavit from its representative averring that Bright Star Courier had changed its name to Bright Star Messenger Center, LLC, prior to the accident, a party cannot sustain its prima facie burden by relying on evidence submitted for the first time in its reply papers  … . The appellant’s failure to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law required the denial of its motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Matthews v Bright Star Messenger Ctr., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04375, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, ,

DISCOVERY OF PRIOR ASSAULTS IN THIS STUDENT ON STUDENT THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO PRIOR SEXUAL ASSAULTS AND PRIOR ASSAULTS BETWEEN THE TWO STUDENTS, ASSAULTS OF ANY KIND MAY HAVE PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that discovery in this third-party assault (negligent supervision) case should not have been restricted to prior sexual assaults in the school and prior assaults between the alleged (student) perpetrator and the (student) plaintiff:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the defendants were only required to provide records pertaining to “assaults of a sexual nature” and “all assaults of any nature between” the infant plaintiff and the student alleged to have sexually assaulted the infant plaintiff. Evidence of prior assaults at the school, particularly any assaults in the stairwell where the subject incident occurred, may be sufficient to establish that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of conduct similar to the subject incident … . Moreover, evidence of any prior assaults perpetuated by the offending student against students other than the infant plaintiff may be sufficient to establish that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the offending student’s dangerous propensities … . M.C. v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04372, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION HAD EXPIRED SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THE BANK UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATION WITH DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING THE DEBT HAD NEVER BEEN ACCELERATED; CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMISSAL BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND ACCELERATION OF A MORTGAGE DEBT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined that the bank’s (Deutsche Bank’s) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s RPAPL article 15 action to cancel and discharge the mortgage should have been granted. The bank had started foreclosure proceedings in 2007 and plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the statute of limitations had run. However, the 2007 action had been dismissed because the bank did not have standing at the time it was brought. The Second Department determined the documentary proof of the dismissal of the 2007 action demonstrated, as a matter of law, that the debt had never been accelerated and, therefore, the statute of limitations had never started running. The decision provides a succinct and clear explanation of the requirements for a dismissal based on documentary evidence and the requirements for accelerating a mortgage debt:

… [C]ontrary to the plaintiff’s contention and the opinion of our dissenting colleague, the commencement of the foreclosure action, which was dismissed on the ground that Deutsche Bank lacked standing, was ineffective to constitute a valid exercise of the option to accelerate the debt since Deutsche Bank did not have the authority to accelerate the debt at that time … . The plaintiff did not identify the specific time when the mortgage was actually, legally accelerated. Furthermore, the notices of default were nothing more than letters discussing acceleration as a possible future event, which do not “constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause” … . …

Consequently, the allegations in the complaint that the debt was accelerated as of April 30, 2007, the date when Deutsche Bank commenced the underlying foreclosure action, or prior to April 30, 2007, when the notices of default were sent, are utterly refuted by the documentary evidence submitted by Deutsche Bank, which included the written assignment of the mortgage [dated after April 30, 2007) “together with the . . . note” and the October 2009 order [dismissing the foreclosure action], in support of that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint … . Moreover, Deutsche Bank, through the evidence it submitted with its motion, demonstrated that the plaintiff’s allegation that the statute of limitations to foreclose the subject mortgage had expired was “not a fact at all,” and that “it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it,” warranting dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . J & JT Holding Corp. v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 04366, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

,

PETITIONER DID NOT LIVE IN THE TOWN WHERE THE CHALLENGED CANDIDATE WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STRUCK THE RESPONDENT CANDIDATES’ ANSWER BASED UPON ALLEGED DEFECTS IN THE VERIFICATION AND DENIALS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the respondent candidates’ answer should not have been stricken based upon alleged defects in the verification and denials and petitioner did not have standing to contest the designating petition because she did not reside in the town where the single challenged candidate was running for office:

CPLR 3026 provides that “[p]leadings shall be liberally construed” and that “[d]efects shall be ignored if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced.” Here, we conclude that petitioner did not establish substantial prejudice from any alleged defect in the verification, and thus candidate respondents’ answer should not have been stricken on that ground … . Moreover, “the CPLR does not provide for the striking of improper denials” … .

Furthermore, we note that candidate respondents properly raised standing as an affirmative defense in their April 24 answer, and we agree with candidate respondents that petitioner lacked standing to commence this proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16. A condition precedent to commencing a proceeding as an objector pursuant to section 16-102 is compliance with the requirements of section 6-154, including that the objector be a “voter registered to vote for such public office” (§ 6-154 [2]).

Here, petitioner served her specifications of objections upon Vickman and upon the chairwoman and the secretary of the Party only, and not on any of the other candidate respondents listed on the authorization. Petitioner, however, lacked standing to challenge the designating petition of Vickman or to challenge the authorization as it pertained to Vickman, who was running for public office in the Town of Farmersville, because petitioner was not a resident of that town … . Matter of Augostini v Bernstein, 2019 NY Slip Op 04312, Fourth Dept 5-30-19

 

, ,

DESIGNATING PETITION PROPERLY INVALIDATED AND THE CANDIDATE’S NAME WAS PROPERLY STRUCK FROM THE PRIMARY BALLOT, THE CANDIDATE’S NAME APPEARED ON DESIGNATING PETITIONS FOR TWO DIFFERENT PUBLIC OFFICES WHICH PRESUMPTIVELY MISLED THE PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the designating petition was properly invalidated and the candidate’s name (Duffy) was properly removed from the primary ballot. The Second Department noted that the failure to include the index number on the order to show cause and the petition was a mistake which could be disregarded. The index number was on the request for judicial intervention which was served with the order to show cause and petition (CPLR 2001). The Second Department further noted that the petition met the strict pleading requirements for fraud by by virtue of the incorporation of another document (objections) by reference (CPLR 3016 (b) and 3014).:

… [T]he Supreme Court granted the petition to invalidate the petition designating Duffy as a candidate for Council Member and directed that Duffy’s name be removed from the primary ballot. The court found that Duffy and her agents did not intentionally seek to mislead enrolled party voters while gathering designating petition signatures, but that Duffy nevertheless knew that her name appeared simultaneously on two separate designating petitions for two different public offices, which presumptively misled enrolled voters as to which of the two public offices she was truly seeking. The court found that Duffy “failed to rebut this presumption by public action and/or filings in such a manner as to prevent election fraud.” * * *

… [T]he voters were misled, warranting the invalidation of the designating petition for Council Member. In circulating the designating petition for that office, Duffy deleted from the committee’s designating petition the name of a candidate who had been endorsed by the committee, substituted her name for the name of that candidate, and circulated the revised designating petition without the permission of Bouvier, whose name continued to appear on the designating petition. The designating petition, as altered and circulated, was “misleading in suggesting that the various candidates listed intended to run together” as a team … . While a single instance of adding another candidate’s name without consent, standing alone, has been found insufficient to warrant the invalidation of an entire designating petition … , this case involves much more than the mere addition of a name to a designating petition. Here, Duffy affirmatively altered an existing designating petition containing other names by substituting her own name in place of the name of a candidate who had been endorsed by the committee. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the problem of misleading voters was compounded by the simultaneous circulation of two designating petitions designating Duffy for two separate public offices … . Matter of Lynch v Duffy, 2019 NY Slip Op 04168, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

, ,

ALLEGED ASSAULT BY DOCTOR WAS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE DOCTOR’S EMPLOYMENT BY DEFENDANT HOSPITAL, THE ACTION AGAINST THE HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, TIME FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION STARTED ANEW AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS VACATED, FAILURE TO ATTACH PLEADINGS TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOT FATAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this third-party assault case against the defendant hospital based upon an alleged sexual assault by an employee-doctor should have been dismissed. Because the alleged assault and battery was not in furtherance of defendant’s business, the doctrine of respondeat superior did not apply. The Second Department noted that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was not untimely because the note of issue had been vacated, which started the time for summary judgment anew. The Second Department also noted that the failure to attach the pleadings to the motion for summary judgment was not fatal because they were attached to the reply:

Pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), a court will grant a motion for summary judgment when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the opponent of the motion, it determines that the movant’s papers justify holding, as a matter of law, that the cause of action has no merit. “The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment. Pursuant to this doctrine, the employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . “An employee’s ations fall within the scope of employment where the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer’s interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer’s business'” … . “An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of the employer, or if the act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . Thus, where an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, the challenged conduct cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment … .

A sexual assault perpetrated by an employee is not in furtherance of an employer’s business and is a clear departure from the scope of employment, having been committed for wholly personal motives … . Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants demonstrated that the doctor’s alleged conduct was not in furtherance of St. John’s business and was a departure from the scope of his employment, having been committed for wholly personal motives … . Montalvo v Episcopal Health Servs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04158, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

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