You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

ORDER ENTERED UPON CONSENT IS NOT APPEALABLE, COERCION ARGUMENT MUST BE RAISED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the appeal in this neglect proceeding, noted that an order entered upon consent is not appealable. The argument that the consent was coerced must be raised in a motion to vacate the order:

Following consultation with her counsel, respondent … consented on the record to a finding of neglect. Family Court then entered an order that adjudicated the children to be neglected and contained the agreed-upon terms of disposition. Respondent appeals.

It is well settled that an order entered upon consent is not appealable … . Respondent’s claim that her consent was involuntary because she was coerced into accepting the settlement offer should have been raised in Family Court by way of a motion to vacate the order (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [f] … ). As the record does not reveal that any such application was made, the appeal is not properly before this Court. Matter of Vicktoriya DD. (Sheryl EE.), 2019 NY Slip Op 03411, Third Dept 5-2-19

 

,

THE PURPORTED WAIVER OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE WAS NOT IN WRITING AS REQUIRED BY GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-103, PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined that, because the defendant’s (CFA’s) purported waiver of the statute of limitations defense was not in writing as required by General Obligations Law 17-103, plaintiff’s breach of contract action was time-barred:

To govern the … “subtle interplay . . . between the freedom to contract and New York public policy” … , the legislature enacted General Obligations Law § 17-103 (“Agreements waiving the statute of limitation”), the first paragraph of which provides:

“A promise to waive, to extend, or not to plead the statute of limitation applicable to an action arising out of a contract express or implied in fact or in law, if made after the accrual of the cause of action and made, either with or without consideration, in a writing signed by the promisor or his agent is effective, according to its terms, to prevent interposition of the defense of the statute of limitation in an action or proceeding commenced within the time that would be applicable if the cause of action had arisen at the date of the promise, or within such shorter time as may be provided in the promise” (General Obligations Law § 17-103[1] … ).

“An agreement to extend the statute of limitations that does not comply with these requirements [of § 17-103(1)] has no effect'” … . Sotheby’s, Inc. v Mao, 2019 NY Slip Op 03477, First Dept 5-2-18

 

, , ,

RES JUDICATA APPLIES TO ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A SMALL CLAIMS ACTION, NO NEED TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL TO BRING A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ACTION AGAINST A FORMER PARTNER IN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND RENDERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined: (1) although the Small Claims Act provides that collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) does not apply to fact-findings made in a small claims action, the doctrine of res judicata does apply to any issue which could have been, but was not, raised in the small claims action; (2) a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action does not entail piercing the corporate veil in a proceeding against a former partner in a professional corporation; (3) the judge should not have searched the record to render summary judgment when neither party requested that relief:

… “[T]he elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendant’s misconduct” … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, it is not necessary to pierce the corporate veil in order to maintain a cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty against former partners in a professional corporation. …

Since … neither party moved for summary judgment with respect to the counterclaims and none of the issues raised in the first, second, or third counterclaims were litigated in the summary judgment motion, or the small claims action, the Supreme Court should not have, in effect, searched the record and awarded the plaintiff summary judgment dismissing those counterclaims … . Weinberg v Picker, 2019 NY Slip Op 03400, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

, ,

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN REPLY DID NOT SATISFY PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the documentary evidence relied upon by plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not meet the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. The court noted that documents submitted in reply could not be considered to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of making out a prima facie case:

Although “the mere filing of papers received from other entities, even if they are retained in the regular course of business, is insufficient to qualify the documents as business records, such records are nonetheless admissible if the recipient can establish personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures, or that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient’s own records or routinely relied upon by the recipient in its business” … . While [plaintiff’s vice president] averred, inter alia, that his affidavit was based on books and records maintained by the plaintiff, he did not state that Bank of America’s records were provided to the plaintiff and incorporated into the plaintiff’s own records, or that the plaintiff routinely relied upon such records in its business, or that he had personal knowledge of Bank of America’s business practices and procedures. Thus, he failed to lay the proper foundation for admission of these records … . The affidavit and documents submitted by the plaintiff for the first time in reply to the defendants’ opposition could not be used to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden.​ Tri-State Loan Acquisitions III, LLC v Litkowski, 2019 NY Slip Op 03398, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

,

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT A MOTION TO CONFIRM A REFEREE’S REPORT IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING BE MADE BEFORE A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MAY BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a plaintiff in a foreclosure action need not make a motion to confirm a referee’s report before a judgment of foreclosure can be granted:

… [T]he plaintiff moved … to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The court denied the motion without prejudice to renew upon confirmation of the referee’s report. The plaintiff appeals.

CPLR 4403 authorizes a court to confirm or reject a referee’s report and, thereafter, to “render decision directing judgment in the action.” There is no requirement under the statute that a motion to confirm a referee’s report be made before a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale may be brought. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination on the merits of the plaintiff’s motion … . Real Estate Mtge. Network, Inc. v Pretto, 2019 NY Slip Op 03390, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

, ,

REPORT OF FIRE MARSHAL, WHO HAD NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF HIS INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE, WAS ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO THE BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff could not defeat a summary judgment motion by raising a new theory of liability in the opposing papers:

The report established that the fire marshal conducted an investigation at the subject premises and concluded that the fire in defendants’ building was caused by combustible clothing left in a dryer for too long, rather than any defect in the premises or dryer … . Although the fire marshal did not have an independent recollection of his investigation, his report was admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, and was sufficient to satisfy defendants’ prima facie burden, since it noted that he independently inspected the premises and concluded that the accident was not due to defendants’ negligence … .

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her expert failed to address the theories of liability raised in the complaint and bill of particulars and failed to rebut defendants’ showing. Instead, plaintiff’s expert raised a new theory, namely that plaintiff’s injuries from smoke inhalation were caused by the absence of a self-closing door in the laundry room where the fire occurred, which caused smoke to permeate into plaintiff’s apartment. A plaintiff cannot defeat a summary judgment motion by asserting a new theory of liability for the first time in opposition papers … . Mirdita v Musovic Realty Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 03284, First Dept 4-30-19

 

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO ANSWER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO APPEAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined low office failure was a legitimate excuse for failing to serve an answer. Defendant had made a pre-answer motion to dismiss, thereby demonstrating defendant did not intend to abandon the action:

Defendants satisfied the requirements of CPLR 3012(d), which authorizes an extension of time to appear or plead “upon such terms as may be just and upon a showing of reasonable excuse for delay or default.” Here, the delay in filing an answer was occasioned by law office failure, which can constitute a reasonable excuse … . Defendants’ counsel explained that its failure to file its answer was due to an error in its office’s case management system, which, upon the entry of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, marked the complaint answered. Notably, service of the pre-answer motion to dismiss revealed that defendants did not intend to abandon the action. Plaintiff does not argue that it has been prejudiced as a result of defendants’ three month delay in submitting its answer … , and our determination comports with New York’s strong public policy in favor of litigating matters on the merits … . Hertz Vehicles, LLC v Mollo, 2019 NY Slip Op 03270, First Dept 4-30-19

 

,

NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER A CUSTODY MATTER BECAUSE THE CHILD HAD NOT LIVED IN NEW YORK FOR SIX MONTHS AT THE TIME THE PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED, NEW JERSEY STILL HAD JURISDICTION AT THAT TIME BECAUSE THE CHILD HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM NEW JERSEY LESS THAN SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE NEW YORK PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, reversing Family Court, determined that New York did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding. At the time the proceeding was brought the child had not lived in New York for six months and New Jersey still had jurisdiction. The Fourth Department went through the history of jurisdictional issues in custody matters and through each of the grounds for jurisdiction codified in the Domestic Relations Law:

Instead of claiming home state jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (a), the mother essentially argues that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding under the safety net provision of section 76 (1) (d), which confers jurisdiction to make custody determinations when, insofar as relevant here, “no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in [section 76 (1)] (a).” …

We reject the mother’s reliance on section 76 (1) (d). Under the special UCCJEA [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act] definition of “home state” applicable to infants under six months old (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a [7]; NJ Stat Ann § 2A:34-54), New Jersey was the child’s “home state” between the date of his birth (February 18, 2015) and the alleged date of his move to New York (July 15, 2015) … . Because the UCCJEA confers continuing jurisdiction on the state that “was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding” if a parent lives in that state without the child (Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [a]; NJ Stat Ann § 2A:34-65 [a] [1]), it follows that New Jersey retained continuing jurisdiction of this matter until January 15, 2016, i.e., six months after the child’s alleged move to New York on July 15, 2015 and one week after the instant proceeding was commenced on January 8, 2016 … . Thus, New York lacked jurisdiction under section 76 (1) (d) because New Jersey could have exercised jurisdiction under the criteria of section 76 (1) (a) on the date of this proceeding’s commencement … . Matter of Nemes v Tutino, 2019 NY Slip Op 03236, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

, ,

DESPITE THE PROVISION IN THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRING THAT ANY MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT APPLY NEW JERSEY LAW, BECAUSE ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK WHEN THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION WAS MADE, NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined that. despite the choice of law provision in the separation agreement, New York law applied to any modification of child support. The family lived in New Jersey when the separation agreement, providing that New Jersey law would control support modification, was executed. But all parties were living in New York when the application for modification was made:

… [W]e conclude that the court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ([UIFSA] Family Ct Act art 5-B) to resolve the issues raised in the mother’s petition and objections … . The UIFSA unequivocally provides that where, as here, the parents reside in this state “and the child does not reside in the issuing state, a tribunal of this state has jurisdiction to enforce and to modify the issuing state’s child support order in a proceeding to register that order” … . Furthermore, we agree with the mother that New York law must be applied to determine the father’s child support obligation here inasmuch as the statute further provides that “[a] tribunal of this state exercising jurisdiction under this section shall apply . . . the procedural and substantive law of this state to the proceeding for enforcement or modification” (Family Ct Act § 580-613 [b]). …

Although courts will generally enforce a choice of law clause ” so long as the chosen law bears a reasonable relationship to the parties or the transaction’ ” … , courts will not enforce such clauses where the chosen law violates ” some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal’ ” … . It is long settled that New York has a “strong public policy that obligates a parent to support his or her child” . Under New York law, child support obligations are required to be calculated pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act ([CSSA] Family Ct Act § 413), and ” [t]he duty of a parent to support his or her child shall not be eliminated or diminished by the terms of a separation agreement’ ” … . In addition, whereas … Jersey law provides that child support obligations generally end when a child reaches the age of 19 … , in New York, “[a] parent’s duty to support his or her child until the child reaches the age of 21 years is a matter of fundamental public policy” … . Under the circumstances, and given that the parties do not have a valid agreement to opt out of the CSSA (see generally Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [h]), we conclude that enforcement of the parties’ choice of law provision would violate those strong New York public policies. Matter of Brooks v Brooks, 2019 NY Slip Op 03164, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

, ,

MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINTS IN THESE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ACTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS OF A CONTRACT SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED AT THE MOTION-TO-DISMISS STAGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, over a partial dissent, determined plaintiff’s (the Trustee’s) motion to amend its complaints in these residential mortgage backed securities actions should have been granted. The amendment sought to allege defendant breached the underlying contract by failing to notify the trustee of loan breaches. The majority found that the contract provision requiring notice was ambiguous. The dissent argued the contract was not ambiguous and did not require notification:

It is well settled that “[a] request for leave to amend a complaint should be freely given, and denied only if there is prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay, or if the proposed amendment is palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law” … . “A party opposing leave to amend must overcome a heavy presumption of validity in favor of [permitting amendment]” … .

Judged by these standards, the motion court should have granted the Trustee’s motions for leave to file the amended complaints with respect to the express breach of contract claims based on DBSP’s (defendant’s) failure to notify the Trustee of the loan breaches … . It cannot be said, at this early stage of the proceedings, that these claims are “palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law” … . Nor has DBSP asserted, let alone shown, that it would suffer any prejudice or surprise directly resulting from the delay. * * *

… [B]because the disputed provision is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, “it cannot be construed as a matter of law, and dismissal . . . is not appropriate” … . LDIR, LLC v DB Structured Prods., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03154, First Dept 4-25-19

 

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