You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

COURT OF CLAIMS DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ISSUE, REVIEW OF AN AGENCY DETERMINATION MUST BE BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Court of Claims did not have subject matter jurisdiction over review of an agency determination, which must be brought as an Article 78 action:

At issue is whether the Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. While claimant seeks significant financial relief, the core of its claim challenges defendant’s determination to classify the therapists as employees for purposes of calculating the premium due under the workers’ compensation policy. This is a threshold agency determination that the Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction to address … . … Such agency determinations are subject to review in the context of a CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced in Supreme Court, where a successful petitioner would be entitled to recover an overpayment as incidental relief (see CPLR 7806 … ). As such, claimant’s application should have been denied. Family & Educ. Consultants, LLC v New York State Ins. Fund, 2019 NY Slip Op 01273, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WHEN PLAINTIFF BANK ATTEMPT TO TO BRING PREVIOUSLY FILED PAPERS INTO COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSEQUENT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the foreclosure action when plaintiff bank attempted to bring previously filed documents into compliance with subsequent administrative orders:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal”… . Here, the plaintiff’s counsel attempted to comply, in good faith, with Administrative Orders 548/10 and 431/11 of the Chief Administrative Judge, which did not exist at the time of the commencement of the action, or at the time of the plaintiff’s prior motion for an order of reference. Under such circumstances, dismissal was not warranted. Nothing in the Administrative Orders requires the dismissal of an action merely because the plaintiff’s counsel discovers that there was some irregularity or defect in a prior submission, nor is the plaintiff effectively required to commence an entirely new action … . JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Laszlo, 2019 NY Slip Op 01205, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS MADE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN, BUT THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE MOTION PAPERS, THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TOLLED BY THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the statute of limitations was not tolled by the motion to amend the complaint, which was made before the statute ran, because the supplemental summons was not attached to the motion papers:

Although plaintiffs sought leave to amend the complaint before the applicable statute of limitations had expired, their motion did not toll the statute, because they failed to annex the supplemental summons to their papers (see Karagiannis v North Shore Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 80 AD3d 569, 569 [2d Dept 2011]). Bossung v Rebaco Realty Holding Co., N.V., 2019 NY Slip Op 01188 [169 AD3d 538], First Dept 2-19-19

 

, ,

THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES CASE, WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE NOTIFIED AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPURCHASE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES, WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S TIMELY COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO REFILE THE COMPLAINT WITHIN SIX MONTHS PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the trustee’s breach of contract action in the residential-mortgage-backed-securities (RMBS) case was properly dismissed without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to refile pursuant to CPLR 205 (which allows a suit to be refiled within six months of a dismissal that is not on the merits). The contractual sole remedy provision, which requires that the defendant (DLJ) be notified and given the opportunity to repurchase any mortgages deemed defective, was not be complied with and the timely complaint was dismissed for that reason:

As a general rule, under CPLR 205 (a) a subsequent action may be filed within six months of a non-merits dismissal of the initial timely-filed matter. Here, we conclude that CPLR 205 (a) applies to an RMBS trustee’s second action when its timely first action is dismissed for failure to comply with a contractual condition precedent. * * *

The difference between a procedural and substantive condition precedent is well-established. A condition precedent is substantive when it “describe[s] acts or events which must occur before a party is obliged to perform a promise made pursuant to an existing contract”… . In other words, the condition is “part of the cause of action and necessary to be alleged and proven, and without this no cause of action exist[s]” … , RMBS notice and sole remedy provisions are not substantive elements of the cause of action, but instead limitations on the remedy for a breach of the mortgage loan representations and warranties … . They serve as a precondition, “a procedural prerequisite to suit,” not a separate undertaking by the trustee … . Since notice and sole remedy provisions “do[] not create a substantive condition precedent” … , they do not affect when the statute of limitations commences because the limitations clock begins to run when the contract is executed.

Nevertheless, DLJ argues that the Trustee had to fulfill the procedural condition precedent before the limitations period expired, and its failure to do so rendered the original action untimely, such that a new action cannot be commenced pursuant to CPLR 205 (a). DLJ’s argument cannot be reconciled with our case law that a suit may be refiled pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) despite a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a condition precedent prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01169, CtApp 2-19-19

 

, , ,

TRUSTEE’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES CASE WAS TIME-BARRED, THE ACTION COULD NOT RELATE BACK PURSUANT TO CPLR 203 BECAUSE THE TIMELY ACTION BY ANOTHER PARTY WAS PRECLUDED BY THE CONTRACT, THE COURT OF APPEALS COULD NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTION WAS TIMELY PURSUANT TO CPLR 205, EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION, BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT FULLY ADDRESSED IN SUPREME COURT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the trustee’s breach of contract action in this residential-mortgage-backed-securities securities case was time-barred. A certificate holder had filed a timely action, but the relevant contract precluded the action by the certificate holder. Therefore the trustee’s action could not be deemed to relate-back to it (CPLR 203). The Court of Appeals could not consider whether the trustee’s action was timely under CPLR 205, despite the fact that the Appellate Division addressed the issue, because the issue was not fully addressed by the parties in Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals does not have interest of justice jurisdiction:

CPLR 203 (f) has no application here because the certificate holder’s pre-existing action was not valid. The lower courts concluded that under the no action clause, the certificate holder could not bring the action on behalf of itself, any other certificate holder, or the Trustee. Those conclusions are not at issue in this Court. Thus, the certificate holder’s action was subject to dismissal, and there is no valid pre-existing action to which a claim in a subsequent amended pleading may relate back. The Trustee’s contention that it may use the relation-back doctrine of CPLR 203 (f) to cure the certificate holder’s lack of a right to sue, and that it may therefore avoid any problem with the identity of the plaintiff upon re-filing pursuant to CPLR 205 (a), is without merit. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01168, CtApp 2-19-19

 

,

MENTAL HEALTH LEGAL SERVICES DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL A HOSPITAL TO COMPLY WITH THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEDURE WHEN A PATIENT REQUESTS AN ADMISSION OR RETENTION HEARING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined Mental Hygiene Legal Services did not have standing to seek a writ of mandamus to compel a hospital to comply with Mental Hygiene Law 9.31 (b) “which sets forth the procedure that must be followed after a patient requests an admission or retention hearing:

MHLS alleges that, in early 2016, it “began to notice problems with the medical charts offered into evidence by BPC [Bronx Psychiatric Center]” because “documents contained in the chart had been added or removed just prior to the hearing.” MHLS filed this CPLR article 78 petition in the nature of mandamus, in its own name — and separate from any specific client or proceeding — seeking an order compelling BPC to provide copies of a patient’s entire clinical chart when it provides notice of a request for an admission or retention hearing, arguing the clinical chart is part of the “record of the patient” under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31. Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Daniels, 2019 NY Slip Op 01123, CtApp 2-14-19

 

,

COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION ONLY AVAILABLE TO A PARTY WHO IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE, AS OPPOSED TO LIABLE FOR THE PARTY’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that a party cannot obtain common-law indemnification unless it is vicariously liable:

The court properly granted the motions … for summary judgment dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims against them. “[A] party cannot obtain common-law indemnification unless it has been held to be vicariously liable without proof of any negligence . . . on its own part” … , and the only claims ever asserted against defendant [in this case] sought to hold it liable for its own negligence rather than vicariously liable … . Ramirez v Almah, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01153 [169 AD3d 508], First Dept 2-14-19

 

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT TOLL WHILE DEFENDANT WAS OUT OF STATE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE BEEN SERVED OUT OF STATE, PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statute of limitations did not toll while defendant was out of state and the action was therefore time-barred:

The plaintiffs’ contention that the action was timely because they were entitled to the benefit of the tolling provision of CPLR 207 based on the defendant’s alleged absence from the state did not raise a question of fact. Under that statute, as relevant here, when a defendant leaves the state after an action has accrued, and is continually absent from the state for at least four months, the time of the defendant’s absence is not included in the time during which the action must be commenced. This tolling provision, however, does not apply “while jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be obtained without personal delivery of the summons to the defendant within the state” (CPLR 207[3] …). In other words, the toll will not apply if there is a means by which the defendant may be served notwithstanding his or her absence from the state … . Here, even during his alleged absence from New York State, the defendant was subject to service of process (see CPLR 302[a][2]; 308[5]; 313 …). The plaintiffs did not submit evidence establishing that the defendant was attempting to evade service of process by, for example, living secretly in a foreign country, such that no means of service of process on him was available … . MP v Davidsohn, 2019 NY Slip Op 01069, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PROPERLY GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN AT THE TIME THE MOTION TO EXTEND WAS MADE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint in the interest of justice, noting that the statute of limitations had expired when plaintiff made her motion to extend:

The interest of justice standard “requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties” … . “Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff [seeking an extension in the interest of justice] need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter” … . “However, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the [potentially] meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … .

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting, in the interest of justice, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant. The statutory 120-day period for service of process commenced in November 2016… . In December 2016, the plaintiff attempted service on the defendant on multiple occasions. Moreover, she promptly moved, inter alia, for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint after the defendant challenged the service on the ground that it was defective … . The statute of limitations had expired at the time the plaintiff made her motion, and there was no demonstrable prejudice to the defendant. Darko v Guerrino, 2019 NY Slip Op 01058, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

, ,

MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL COUNSEL PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the common interest privilege applied to a memorandum by plaintiff’s general counsel:

The motion court properly held that a legal memorandum prepared by plaintiff’s General Counsel, and addressed to its Chief Executive Officer, which provided a summary and analysis of its pending litigation matters, including the litigation at issue, and subsequently shared with potential merger partners during the due diligence period pursuant to a common interest agreement, was privileged and protected from disclosure.

The common interest privilege is an exception to the traditional rule that the presence of a third-party at a communication between counsel and client is sufficient to deprive the communication of confidentiality. The common interest doctrine is a limited exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege, and requires that: (1) the underlying material qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege, (2) the parties to the disclosure have a common legal interest, and (3) the material must pertain to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation for it to be protected. The record, here, demonstrates that the common interest agreement was entered into in reasonable anticipation of litigation … .  Kindred Healthcare, Inc. v SAI Global Compliance, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01164, First Dept 2-14-19

 

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