You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BASED IN PART ON THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT OF RESPONDENT’S CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner’s motion for summary judgment in this neglect proceeding was properly granted. The motion was based in party on respondent’s endangering-the-welfare-of-a-child conviction:

… “[A] criminal conviction may be given collateral estoppel effect in a Family Court proceeding where (1) the identical issue has been resolved, and (2) the defendant in the criminal action had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of his or her criminal conduct” … . Defendant does not dispute that he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his criminal conduct before the trial court … . … In order to find a defendant guilty of endangering the welfare of a child, it must be proven that “[h]e or she knowingly act[ed] in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than [17] years old” (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]). In turn, “[t]o establish neglect, [a] petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a child’s physical, mental or emotional condition was harmed or is in imminent danger of harm as a result of a failure on the part of the parent to exercise a minimum degree of care” … . …

… [T]the factual allegations underlying respondent’s conviction were adequate to support the finding of neglect. Matter of Lilliana K. (Ronald K.), 2019 NY Slip Op 05358, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

, , ,

RECORD WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE PHONE WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAPTURED IMAGES OF THE INCIDENT AT THE HEART OF THE LAWSUIT, DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that the record was not sufficient to conclude whether dismissal of the complaint was a proper sanction for spoliation of evidence. Plaintiff alleged defendant negligently or intentionally struck defendant with an all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Defendant asked plaintiff to preserve a phone which allegedly contained images of the incident. Plaintiff did not preserve the phone but provided one image and one video which were alleged to have been on the phone. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint as a sanction for spoliation. The Third Department noted there was evidence that all the metadata on the phone had been preserved and remitted the matter for discovery and, if necessary, an appropriate sanction:

… [T]he factors to be considered in determining the appropriate sanctions for such failures are “the extent that the spoliation of evidence may prejudice a party and whether a dismissal will be necessary as a matter of elementary fairness” … . …

… [W]e remit to Supreme Court with direction for plaintiff to promptly obtain and provide to defendant all photos, videos and metadata pertinent to the incident that have been preserved in any source, or to provide defendant with full access to any such stored photos, videos and metadata. The retrieval and examination of this information — or the continued failure to do so — will permit Supreme Court to reexamine, upon a full record, whether pertinent electronic information has been lost as a result of plaintiff’s failure to preserve the phone, to what extent defendant has been prejudiced by that loss and, thus, whether dismissal, an adverse inference charge or some other sanction may be appropriate … . LaBuda v LaBuda, 2019 NY Slip Op 05372, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

, , , ,

CLAIMANTS DID NOT ALLEGE WHEN THE ALLEGED INJURIES RELATED TO TOXIC CONTAMINATION WERE INCURRED, CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the action alleging negligence and inverse condemnation stemming from toxic contamination of the vicinity of a defunct factory was properly dismissed because the allegations did not specify when the alleged injuries occurred:

The State of New York is sovereign and has consented to be sued only in strict accordance with the requirements of the Court of Claims Act (see Court of Claims Act § 8 …). Among those requirements is the claimant’s duty to allege “the time when [the] claim arose” … . The requirements of section 11 (b) are jurisdictional in nature … , and the failure to satisfy them mandates dismissal of the claim without regard to whether the State was prejudiced … or had access to the requisite information from its own records … . As the Court of Appeals has explained, the State is not required “to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege” … . …

Here, although claimants adequately specified when defendant’s negligent acts allegedly occurred, they failed to supply any dates or ranges of dates regarding their alleged injuries, such as when they were exposed to toxins, when they developed symptoms, when they sought treatment, or when they were diagnosed with an illness. Instead, claimants alleged only the dates of their residence in Geneva and the dates when news of the contamination became public. Claimants’ allegations are insufficient to enable defendant to adequately investigate the claims in order to ascertain its liability, if any. Given claimants’ failure to provide any dates regarding their alleged injuries, defendant could not realistically differentiate between those injuries attributable to toxic exposure and those injuries attributable to other causes. We therefore conclude that claimants failed to adequately plead when the claims arose for purposes of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Consequently, the court properly dismissed the claims as jurisdictionally defective … . Matter of Geneva Foundry Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 05271, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, , , ,

HARDSHIP WAIVER TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE CORE PRESERVATION AREA OF THE LONG ISLAND CENTRAL PINES BARRENS PROPERLY DENIED, ACCOMPANYING ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED, SUA SPONTE, BY THE JUDGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the Article 78 petition for a hardship waiver to allow petitioner to build a single family residence on property within the core preservation area of the Long Island Central Pines Barrens was properly denied. However, the accompanying declaratory judgment action (alleging the denial of the waiver was an unconstitutional taking) should not have been summarily dismissed by the judge absent a motion for that relief:

… [C]ontrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Commission’s determination to deny its application for an extraordinary hardship waiver had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. In particular, the Commission rationally found, inter alia, that the alleged hardship was not the result of any unique circumstances peculiar to the subject property (see ECL 57-0121[10][a][i] …) and, in any event, that the alleged hardship was self-created (see ECL 57-0121[10][a][ii], [iii] …). The Commission also rationally found that the application did not satisfy the requirements of ECL 57-0121(10)(c) and reasonably distinguished the application from prior applications for which it granted an extraordinary hardship waiver … . …

“In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand” … . “The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment”… . “Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … . Matter of Armand Gustave, LLC v Pavacic, 2019 NY Slip Op 05125, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

, ,

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA REQUIRED BY CPLR 3211(a)(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer’s (Reliastar’s) motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence should not have been granted. Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract when Reliastar canceled the life insurance policy:

“To succeed on a motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the documentary evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law”… . “In order for evidence to qualify as documentary,’ it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “Conversely, letters, emails, and affidavits fail to meet the requirements for documentary evidence” … . Here, in support of that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), Reliastar submitted the policy and certain policy notices, which, according to Reliastar, refuted the plaintiffs’ contention that the policy cancellation was the result of Reliastar’s breach of its obligations under the policy. The policy notices, however, were, in effect, letters, which fail to meet the requirements for documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . Magee-Boyle v Reliastar Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 05118, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, DESPITE THE PASSAGE OF SIX YEARS SINCE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, THE COURT DOES NOT EXAMINE THE MERITS OF THE PLEADING UNLESS THE LACK OF MERIT IS CLEAR AND FREE FROM DOUBT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint, which originally stemmed from the alleged encroachment of defendant’s pipes (since removed), should have been granted, despite the passage of six years (during which a default judgment was vacated):

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for leave to amend the complaint. Permission to amend a pleading should be “freely given” (CPLR 3025[b] …), where the proposed amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and there is no evidence that the amendment would prejudice or surprise the opposing party … . Mere lateness is not a basis for denying an amendment; ” [i]t must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'” … . The burden of establishing prejudice is on the party opposing the amendment … .

Here, notwithstanding the lengthy gap in time between the commencement of the action and the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, the defendant has made no showing that it was surprised by the new allegations or would be significantly prejudiced … . Moreover, some portion of that delay is attributable to the defendant’s effort to vacate its default and the parties’ subsequent motion practice and negotiations, and there is no contention that discovery has been concluded … .

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. “No evidentiary showing of merit is required under CPLR 3025(b)'” … , and “a court shall not examine the legal sufficiency or merits of a pleading unless [the] insufficiency or lack of merit is clear and free from doubt” … . The allegations of the proposed amendment and the submissions in support of it adequately set forth the requisite elements for causes of action alleging private nuisance and trespass … . Krakovski v Stavros Assoc., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05112, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE SUMMONED A NECESSARY PARTY WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A DEFENDANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DESPITE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s second motion to extend the time to serve defendant (Bandolos). after the statute of limitations had run, should have been granted. The court further held that Supreme Court should have summoned a necessary party (Mother of Pearl, the record owner) because the party was subject to the court’s jurisdiction:

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, for leave to join Mother of Pearl as a party to the action … . “A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him [or her] on the ground that . . . the court should not proceed in the absence of a person who should be a party” (CPLR 3211[a][10]). However, CPLR 1001(b) provides that where the party “is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall order him [or her] summoned.” Mother of Pearl, as the record owner of the property, is a necessary party to this action (see CPLR 1001[a]; RPAPL 1311[1]) subject to the jurisdiction of the court. Consequently, the court should have ordered Mother of Pearl summoned, rather than granting that branch of the mortgagors’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(10) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them … . …

Further, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b for leave to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon Kelly Bandalos by publication in the interest of justice … . While the action was timely commenced, the statute of limitations has since expired. Although the plaintiff’s only excuse for not serving Kelly Bandalos by publication is law office failure, it did make diligent efforts to serve her prior to the first extension of time to serve and the issuance of the order of publication. Further, Kelly Bandalos had actual notice of the action within 120 days of its commencement, she served and filed an answer, and there is no identifiable prejudice to her attributable to the delay in service … .  Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Bandalos, 2019 NY Slip Op 05106, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

, ,

DESPITE LOSS OF THE NOTE, THE BANK CAN DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH A LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF UCC 3-803 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank properly established standing in this foreclosure proceeding, despite the note having been lost, with a lost note affidavit which met the requirements of UCC 3-803:

… “[P]ursuant to UCC 3-804, the owner of a lost note may maintain an action upon due proof of [1] his [or her] ownership, [2] the facts which prevent his [or her] production of the instrument and [3] its terms'” … . Accordingly, we agree with the referee that, as long as the affidavit of lost note meets the requirements of UCC 3-804, a mortgagee may establish standing based on its possession of the note, even where the original note has been lost. Here, the parties stipulated that “the factual criteria for the application of § 3-804 ha[ve] been satisfied.” Moreover, while ownership of the note may be easier to establish where there is a valid assignment of the note and mortgage … , due proof of the plaintiff’s ownership may also be provided by an affidavit of lost note setting forth details such as who acquired possession of the note and “when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, the steps taken in the search for the note, or when or how the note was lost” … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Hardt, 2019 NY Slip Op 05100, Second Dept 6-27-29

 

, ,

THE DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO A DIVORCE DOES NOT RENDER ONE FORMER SPOUSE THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR OF THE OTHER, THEREFORE A JUDGMENT DEBTOR WHO DOCKETS A JUDGMENT DOES NOT HAVE PRIORITY PURSUANT TO CPLR 5203 OVER A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOCKETED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the 2015 judgment of divorce which awarded the wife, Andrea, a percentage of marital property, a home worth $5 million, did not make Andrea a judgment creditor such that the failure to docket the judgment of divorce gave priority to a judgment debtor, Pangea, who had docketed a 2016 judgment:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has certified the following question to us: “If an entered divorce judgment grants a spouse an interest in real property pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236, and the spouse does not docket the divorce judgment in the county where the property is located, is the spouse’s interest subject to attachment by a subsequent judgment creditor that has docketed its judgment and seeks to execute against the property?” We answer that question in the negative. * * *

Pangea’s conception of Andrea as judgment creditor is utterly incompatible with our legislature’s dramatic revision of the Domestic Relations Law in 1980. By incorporating the concept of “marital property” into Domestic Relations Law § 236, “the New York Legislature deliberately went beyond traditional property concepts when it formulated the Equitable Distribution Law” … . … Marital assets are not owned by one spouse or another, and the dissolution of a marriage involving the division of marital assets does not render one ex-spouse the creditor of another. Courts are empowered “not only to make an equitable disposition of marital property between [the spouses], but also to make a distributive award in lieu of or to supplement, facilitate or effectuate the division or distribution of property where authorized in a matrimonial action, and payable in a lump sum or over a period of time” … . …

Andrea therefore cannot properly be considered a judgment creditor of John [her ex-husband]. Thus, CPLR 5203 (a), by its plain terms, has no application here, and Pangea can claim no priority. Pangea Capital Mgt., LLC v Lakian, 2019 NY Slip Op 05059, CtApp 6-25-19

 

,

JUDGE WHO DID NOT HEAR THE ORAL ARGUMENT COULD DECIDE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON A PURELY LEGAL QUESTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined it was appropriate for a judge to decide a summary judgment motion, despite the fact that another judge heard the oral argument:

The fact that oral argument was held before a different Justice than the Justice who ultimately decided the motion for summary judgment is not a proper basis for vacating the order granting summary judgment. Although Judiciary Law § 21 provides that a Supreme Court Justice “shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he was not present and sitting therein as a judge,” reversal is not warranted on this ground, because the Justice who granted the motion decided a purely legal question … . Marti v Rana, 2019 NY Slip Op 05011, First Dept 6-20-19

 

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