You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) REVIEW OF A ONE-DAY SQUIRREL-HUNTING FUND-RAISING EVENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined petitioner did not have standing to seek a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review of one-day squirrel hunting event put on by a volunteer fire department:

Prior to 2017, the one-day hunting contests at issue had been held annually by respondent as fundraisers, with prizes having been awarded based on the weight of squirrels turned in at the end of each contest. Petitioner resides approximately 50 miles from the area where respondent has held the hunting contests. She alleges an environmental injury-in-fact based on her fondness for squirrels, the impact that the hunting contests may have on the “local ecology,” and the possibility that the contests may result in the killing of squirrels that she sees near her residence. Petitioner contends that she therefore has standing to bring this proceeding/action. We reject that contention.

Standing is “a threshold requirement for a [party] seeking to challenge governmental action” … . The burden of establishing standing to challenge an action pursuant to SEQRA is “on the party seeking review” … . “The existence of an injury in fact—an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated—ensures that the party seeking review has some concrete interest in prosecuting the action” … . In addition, to establish standing under SEQRA, a petitioner must establish, inter alia, “an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large”… .

Here, we conclude that petitioner has not met her burden of establishing an environmental [*2]injury-in-fact. Although petitioner may have alleged some environmental harm, she has alleged, at most, an injury that is “no different in either kind or degree from that suffered by the general public” . Petitioner also has not established that the hunting activities at issue have affected the wildlife where she resides, nor has she established that she has used, or even visited, the area where the hunting contests have been conducted … . Matter of Sheive v Holley Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01982

 

IN THIS COMBINED ARTICLE 78 AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ARTICLE 78 DID NOT APPLY TO THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WHICH ONLY INVOLVED PRIVATE PARTIES, NOT A GOVERNMENT BODY OR OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined that the declaratory judgment action was not subject to the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 actions. The plaintiff and defendant are private parties who own land on opposite sides of Cady Road. A portion of the Cady Road was declared discontinued and defendant allegedly erected a barrier. Plaintiff’s action sought Article 78 relief against a town official as well as a declaratory judgment. Because no Article 78 relief was possible with respect to the private defendant who allegedly erected the barrier, the shorter statute of limitations did not apply to the declaratory judgment action concerning the rights of the private parties:

Relief under CPLR article 78 is available only against a limited subset of official and institutional parties. It follows that the four-month statute of limitations applicable to article 78 proceedings cannot be imported to bar a declaratory judgment action against a private individual not subject to article 78. * * *

… [D]efendant is not a “body or officer” within the meaning of CPLR 7802 (a), i.e., he is not a “court, tribunal, board, corporation, [or] officer,” and it is well established that article 78 relief is available only against a “body or officer” as defined by section 7802 (a) … . …

… [T]he true gravamen of its declaratory claims “requires a judicial determination as to the rights of the parties to use Cady Road [which] would [thereby] settle the rights of private [parties],” i.e., plaintiff and defendant. And it is well established that such a contest between the “rights of private [parties]” cannot be adjudicated in an article 78 proceeding … . …

… [B]ecause an article 78 proceeding was not a “proper vehicle” for plaintiff’s private claims for declaratory relief against defendant, the four-month “limitations period set forth in CPLR 217 [1] is not applicable to [such claims] and the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213 (1) applies instead” … . Matter of Grocholski Cady Rd., LLC v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 01966, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

,

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL, MADE ONE DAY LATE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE DENIAL OF THE ORAL APPLICATION FOR A JURY TRIAL IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT, EVEN THOUGH NO FORMAL MOTION ON NOTICE WAS MADE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined (1) defendants’ oral application requesting a jury trial, made one day late, should have been granted, and (2) the appeal from a final judgment allows an appeal of the denial of the late application for a jury trial, even though no formal motion on notice was made. The dissent argued the denial was not appealable because there was no formal motion on notice:

An appeal from a final judgment “brings up for review . . . any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment” (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). The parties do not dispute that the order denying defendants’ application for leave to file a late demand for a jury trial necessarily affected the final judgment. …

… [T]he State Constitution provides for a right to a jury trial in civil cases (see NY Const, art I, § 2 … ). Although that right may be waived through the failure to demand it in a timely fashion (see CPLR 4102 [a]), the court “may relieve a party from the effect” of such waiver “if no undue prejudice to the rights of another party would result” (CPLR 4102 [e]). While “[t]he decision . . . to relieve a party from failing to timely comply with CPLR 4102 (a) lies within the sound discretion of the trial court” … , we conclude that the court’s denial of defendants’ application was an abuse of discretion. Braun v Cesareo, 2019 NY Slip Op 01962, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

, ,

THERE IS NO APPEAL FROM A DEFAULT STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO APPEAR, MUST MOVE TO VACATE THE DEFAULT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the appeal, explained that where a party in default for failing to appear wishes to appeal, the party must first move to vacate the default:

Respondent appeared by telephone before the Support Magistrate for arraignment, an appearance and a hearing, following which the Support Magistrate concluded that respondent had willfully violated the support order and recommended that he be incarcerated. The matter was referred to Family Court for confirmation. Respondent requested permission to give electronic testimony. Family Court denied that application both in writing and orally and directed, on the record, that respondent must appear in person for the hearing. When respondent did not appear, the court conducted the hearing in his absence, found that he willfully violated the support order and committed him to jail for 180 days. Respondent appeals.

Family Court properly found respondent in default … . Although respondent’s counsel appeared and offered the explanation that respondent could not afford to travel to New York, the court had already heard and rejected that excuse in connection with respondent’s application to give electronic testimony and directed him to appear in person for the hearing. When respondent failed to do so, the court did not abuse its discretion by finding him in default  … . “[T]he proper procedure would be for [respondent] to move to vacate the default and, if said motion is denied, take an appeal from that order” … . Because no appeal lies from an order entered on default, we must dismiss this appeal … . Matter of Ulster County Support Collection Unit v Beke, 2019 NY Slip Op 01864, Third Dept 3-14-19

 

, ,

SUPREMACY CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR STATEMENTS MADE WHILE A CANDIDATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the Supremacy Clause did not preclude a New York State civil suit for defamation against President Trump. In response to allegations by the plaintiff that Donald Trump had made unwanted sexual advances, then candidate Trump made statements denying the allegations (made by plaintiff and other women), calling them false and outright lies saying, for example, “all of these liars will be sued after the election is over:”

… [T]he current sitting President attempts to shield himself from consequences for his alleged unofficial misconduct by relying upon the constitutional protection of the Presidency. We reject defendant President Trump’s argument that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prevents a New York State court – and every other state court in the country – from exercising its authority under its state constitution. Instead, we find that the Supremacy Clause was never intended to deprive a state court of its authority to decide cases and controversies under the state’s constitution.

… [T]he Supremacy Clause provides that federal law supersedes state law with which it conflicts, but it does not provide that the President himself is immune from state law that does not conflict with federal law. Since there is no federal law conflicting with or displacing this defamation action, the Supremacy Clause does not provide a basis for immunizing the President from state court civil damages actions. Moreover, in the absence of a federal law limiting state court jurisdiction, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Thus, it follows that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendant and properly denied his motion to dismiss. Zervos v Trump, 2019 NY Slip Op 01851, First Dept 3-14-19

 

,

30-DAY TIME TO APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO ALL PARTIES IS TRIGGERED BY THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER OR JUDGMENT WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF ENTRY BY ANY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined that the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal (CPLR 5513(a)) is triggered for all parties when any party serves the other parties with the order or judgment appealed from with written notice of entry:

This appeal provides our Court with an occasion to clarify the meaning of CPLR 5513(a). The 1996 amendment to CPLR 5513(a), effective January 1, 1997, requires that an order or judgment be served “by a party” with written notice of entry in order to commence the time to undertake an appeal (L 1996, ch 214, § 1). … [W]e hold that service of the order or judgment with written notice of entry by any party upon the other parties to the action operates to commence the 30-day time to appeal with respect to not only the serving party, but all the parties in the action. * * *​

… [T]he language of CPLR 5513(a) as to who serves notice of entry is not limited to the “prevailing party,” or to “the appealing party,” or to “the party seeking to limit an adversary’s appellate time.” Rather, “a” party, which is unrestricted, necessarily refers to “any” party to an action. As a result, the service of an order or judgment with written notice of entry commences the 30-day time to appeal as to not only the party performing the service, but as to all other parties as well.

Here, the County’s [defendant’s] service on June 17, 2015, of the Supreme Court’s order with written notice of entry commenced the plaintiffs’ time to appeal the order as to all of the defendants, including those who served a notice of entry at a later date, and those who may have served no notice of entry at all. The plaintiffs’ appeal must therefore be dismissed as untimely as to all of the defendants (see CPLR 5513[a]). W. Rogowski Farm, LLC v County of Orange, 2019 NY Slip Op 01815, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

,

SANCTIONS PROPERLY IMPOSED FOR BRINGING A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined sanctions for frivolous conduct were properly imposed. The action was precluded by collateral estoppel and should not have been brought:

“The court, in its discretion, may award to any party or attorney in any civil action or proceeding before the court, except where prohibited by law, costs in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees resulting from frivolous conduct” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]). Conduct is frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 if it is “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law” or it is “undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1], [2] …).

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a) to impose a sanction upon Miller and his attorney consisting of costs in the form of an attorney’s fee (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]). Under the circumstances of this case, the court properly determined that Miller and his attorney engaged in frivolous conduct in commencing this action, as it was completely without merit in law, and could not be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]). Miller v Falco, 2019 NY Slip Op 01589, Second Dept 3-6-19

 

,

DELIBERATE ACTS BY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY RESULTED IN THE DEFAULT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s attorney’s deliberate acts required denial of defendant’s motion to vacate the default:

The affirmations of the defendant’s attorney reveal that he made a conscious decision not to submit any papers in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion even though the Supreme Court gave him ample opportunity to do so. In addition, defense counsel waited until the plaintiff served a proposed default order, more than four months after the court declared the defendant to be in default, before serving the defendant’s motion to vacate. Under these circumstances, the defendant’s failure to oppose the plaintiff’s motion was willful … .

The defendant claims that her default was caused by law office failure based on defense counsel’s statement in his affirmation that his “office will take full responsibility.” At most, defense counsel’s advice, and the defendant’s decision to follow it, constituted a misguided strategy, not law office failure … . Thus, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her default … . Bove v Bove, 2019 NY Slip Op 01555, Second Dept 3-6-19

 

​

, ,

TENANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO INSURE THE PROPERTY AND ALLEGED IMPROPER ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE ARE NOT DEFAULTS THAT CAN BE CURED, THEREFORE THE TENANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the tenant was not entitled to a Yellowstone injunction because the alleged failure to insure the property and the alleged improper assignment of the lease were not curable defaults:

The purpose of a Yellowstone injunction, which tolls the period in which a tenant may cure a claimed violation of the lease, is for a tenant to avoid forfeiture after a determination against it has been made on the merits, because the tenant will still have an opportunity to cure … .

A necessary lynchpin of a Yellowstone injunction is that the claimed default is capable of cure. Where the claimed default is not capable of cure, there is no basis for a Yellowstone injunction… . Here, the claimed defaults are the tenant’s failure to procure insurance and improper assignment of the lease. The tenant provides various steps that it will take to cure if it is ultimately found to be in material violation of the insurance provisions of the lease. None of these proposed cures involve any retroactive change in coverage, which means that the alleged defaults raised by the landlord are not susceptible to cure … .  * * *

We reject the tenant’s argument, that even if no Yellowstone injunction is warranted, it is still entitled to a preliminary injunction. Yellowstone injunctions are available on a far lesser showing than preliminary injunctions … . Because the Yellowstone injunction fails, the preliminary injunction does as well. In any event, no injunction is needed to preserve the status quo because the landlord cannot evict the tenant unless and until there is a determination of the merits in the landlord’s favor. If the tenant prevails, then there will be no eviction. The right lost by the denial of a Yellowstone injunction is the right to cure any default. Bliss World LLC v 10 W. 57th St. Realty LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01509, First Dept 3-5-19

 

, ,

EVEN WHERE A CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY PLED THE COURT WILL SEARCH THE RECORD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN ACTIONABLE CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO A DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HERE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE THERE WAS NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that, even where a cause of action is not properly pled, on a motion for summary judgment it must search the record to determine whether there is an actionable claim. In this slip and fall case, the building owner was defendant 90 Merrick and the employer of the janitor who allegedly mopped the floor where plaintiff fell was defendant ABM. The First Department held that the 90 Merrick’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

The complaint’s allegations that defendants were negligent in their ownership, operation, control and maintenance of the premises by causing or allowing a dangerous condition on the floor gave no indication that plaintiff’s theories of liability would include 90 Merrick’s negligent retention of ABM or its vicarious liability for ABM’s independent contractor’s negligence in performing its duties under the contract … . Notwithstanding, a motion for summary judgment must be denied if there are issues of fact as to an actionable claim, even if the claim was not properly pleaded … , and we find that there are no factual issues as to whether ABM was an independent contractor — it was — when the accident happened. The deposition testimony elicited from nonparty CLK Commercial Management, LLC’s employee, John S. Burke, the property manager for the building at the time of the accident, and ABM’s manager, Victor Orellana, whose duties at the time of the accident included making sure the building was kept clean, shows that 90 Merrick did not direct, supervise or control ABM’s work and that an ABM employee had responsibility for supervising and inspecting the work performed by ABM’s employees, which comports with the duties and obligations as set forth in defendants’ contract … . Burgdoerfer v CLK/HP 90 Merrick LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01532, First Dept 3-5-19

 

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