You are here: / Civil Procedure

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE DIRECTIONS IN THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DEPRIVED SUPREME COURT OF JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s failure to comply with the service directions in an order to show cause required the denial of the motion to hold defendant in contempt:

… [T]he service requirements set forth in the order to show cause … , were jurisdictional in nature. The plaintiff’s undisputed failure to comply with these requirements by serving the order to show cause pursuant to CPLR 308(4), instead of CPLR 311-a, deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s order to show cause … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant may challenge the validity of the [subsequent] order … , on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to enter the order … . Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to hold the defendant in contempt for failure to comply with the order … , should have been denied. Boucan NYC Café, LLC v 467 Rogers, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00416, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

​

, , ,

A CORPORATION’S REGISTRATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IS NO LONGER DEEMED CONSENT TO BE SUED IN NEW YORK, FORD’S AND GOODYEAR’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SUIT STEMMED FROM A ROLLOVER ACCIDENT IN VIRGINIA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite-Nelson, determined that a products liability case (stemming from a traffic accident in Virginia) against Ford, the manufacturer of the vehicle which rolled over, and Goodyear, the manufacturer of a tire which allegedly failed, could not be brought in New York. The plaintiffs alleged general jurisdiction over both companies based upon business done generally in New York and registration with the NY Department of State. The plaintiffs did not allege long-arm jurisdiction. Neither the vehicle nor the tire was manufactured or purchased from the defendants in New York. The plaintiff had purchased the vehicle from a New York nonparty and had used the vehicle in New York.

We consider on these appeals whether, following the United States Supreme Court decision in Daimler AG v Bauman (571 US 117), a foreign corporation may still be deemed to have consented to the general jurisdiction of New York courts by virtue of having registered to do business in New York and appointed a local agent for the service of process. We conclude that it may not. * * *

We agree with those courts that asserting jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based on the mere registration and the accompanying appointment of an in-state agent by the foreign corporation, without the express consent of the foreign corporation to general jurisdiction, would be “unacceptably grasping” under Daimler (Daimler AG v Bauman, 571 US at 138).

The Court of Appeals does not appear to have … relied upon its consent-by-registration theory since International Shoe was decided. We think that this is a strong indicator that its rationale is confined to that era … and that it no longer holds in the post-Daimler landscape. We conclude that a corporate defendant’s registration to do business in New York and designation of the secretary of state to accept service of process in New York does not constitute consent by the corporation to submit to the general jurisdiction of New York for causes of action that are unrelated to the corporation’s affiliations with New York. Aybar v Aybar, 2019 NY Slip Op 00412, Second Dept 1-23-19

CPLR 3211(a)(8)

 

,

MERE DENIAL OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN A FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS THE OWNER AND HOLDER OF THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ASSERT THE DEFENSE THAT THE PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING, PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY OVERRULED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Castro, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined that a denial of the allegations in a foreclosure complaint that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the note and mortgage is not sufficient to assert that plaintiff lacks standing, a defense that is waived if not asserted:

… [T]he issue of standing is waived absent some affirmative statement on the part of a mortgage foreclosure defendant, which need not invoke magic words or strictly adhere to any ritualistic formulation, but which must clearly, unequivocally, and expressly place the defense of lack of standing in issue by specifically identifying it in the answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss. A mere denial of factual allegations will not suffice for this purpose. * * *

Taken to its logical conclusion, the … defendants’ position would mean that their denials preserve all conceivable affirmative defenses that can be parsed from reading the factual allegations of the complaint in conjunction with their corresponding and conclusory denials, so that these defenses may be raised at some subsequent point in the case. Such a result would render the obligation under CPLR 3018(b) to specifically plead affirmative defenses in the answer meaningless, delay the legislatively favored prompt adjudication of the defenses at an early point in the litigation, and cause prejudice and surprise to plaintiffs. Moreover, the practical realities of mortgage foreclosure litigation are that foreclosure complaints invariably allege that the plaintiff is the holder and/or assignee of the note, and answering defendants reflexively deny (or deny knowledge as to the truth of) most or all of the allegations in their responsive pleadings. Were such denials by themselves sufficient to place standing in issue, then standing would effectively become a prima facie element of the plaintiffs’ claims in all contested foreclosure actions, an unwarranted consequence. Rather, if a defendant in a foreclosure action genuinely believes that she or he has a basis upon which to contest standing, it is not too much to ask her or him to specifically and affirmatively assert that position in the answer as the CPLR requires.

To the extent that some decisions of our Court have strayed from the foregoing principles by indicating that a mere denial in the answer of factual allegations set forth in the complaint will suffice to place standing in issue, thereby injecting uncertainty into this formerly settled area … . US Bank N.A. v Nelson, 2019 NY Slip Op 00494, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, ,

AFFIRMATION CONTESTING SERVICE DID NOT CONFORM TO NEW YORK LAW AND THEREFORE DID NOT REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined that defendant’s affirmation did not conform to New York law and therefore was not sufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit of service. Defendant’s made his affirmation in front of a notary in Israel, but the affirmation did not indicate it was made under penalty of perjury:

“[A]ny person who, for religious or other reasons, wishes to use an affirmation as an alternative to a sworn statement may do so,” but such affirmation “must be made before a notary public or other authorized official,” and the affirmant must “be answerable for the crime of perjury should he make a false statement” … . Furthermore, an affirmation from a person physically located outside the geographic boundaries of the United States must comply with the additional formalities of CPLR 2309 (c), and must, in substance, affirm that the statement is true under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York (see CPLR 2106 [b]). While the defendant’s identity was verified by an authorized official in Israel acting in the capacity of a notary, the affirmation itself failed to indicate that the statements made therein were true under the penalties of perjury. Therefore, the affirmation was without probative value … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Langner, 2019 NY Slip Op 00492 [168 AD3d 1021], Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THIS DIVORCE ACTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the complaint in this divorce action, sua sponte, on a ground not raised by the parties:

The Supreme Court should not have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised in the defendant’s motion … . “[O]n a motion for summary judgment, the court is limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion before the court”… . The plaintiff had no opportunity to address the issue regarding the allegedly defective summons, and this “lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” … .

Since the Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the motion and cross motion, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for a determination of the motion and cross motion on the merits … . Patel v Sharma, 2019 NY Slip Op 00452, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, , , , ,

IN THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE PORTIONS OF THE PETITION WHICH SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE ARE ILLEGAL AND RELATED DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the zoning code provisions enacted by the village board of trustees, which concerned the maximum floor space and coverage on residential lots, were consistent with the village’s comprehensive plan and properly enacted. The Second Department further found that the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) were met. However, the portions of the petition which sought declaratory relief and related damages should not have been summarily dismissed along with the portions which sought Article 78 relief because no demand for dismissal of the declaratory relief portions had been made:

… [I]n the absence of a dispositive motion addressed to the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action, which sought declaratory relief and damages not in the nature of CPLR article 78 relief, the Supreme Court should not have, in effect, dismissed those causes of action. “In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural 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 Bonacker Prop., LLC v Village of E. Hampton Bd. of Trustees, 2019 NY Slip Op 00432, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) WHEN A BRIDGE FORM HE WAS UNLOADING FELL ON HIM, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION TO WARRANT DISCOVERY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action were properly dismissed because plaintiff’s decedent was not involved in construction work when a 2500 pound bridge form fell on him. The court further found that plaintiff had made a sufficient showing that long-arm jurisdiction may apply to Spillman, the manufacturer of the bridge form, to allow discovery:

In support of her claimed violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), plaintiff alleged that, at the time that decedent sustained the fatal injuries, he had been unloading a bridge form that had been delivered to the manufacturing facility operated by LHV so that it could be used in the manufacture and fabrication of construction materials that would be eventually used during unspecified construction at an unspecified construction site. As Supreme Court aptly concluded, these allegations “do not support any contention that the work being done at the time of the incident was, in any manner, an integral part of an ongoing construction contract or was being performed at an ancillary site, incidental to and necessitated by such construction project, where the materials involved were being readied for use in connection with a covered activity,” so as to bring it within the ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1) … . …

For the same reasons, plaintiff’s factual allegations did not support a conclusion that decedent’s injuries occurred in an “area[] in which construction, excavation or demolition work [was] being performed” (Labor Law § 241 [b]) and, thus, Supreme Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was proper … . …

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, we agree with Supreme Court that the foregoing provided the “sufficient start” required to warrant further discovery on the issue of whether personal jurisdiction may be properly exercised over Spillman under CPLR 302 (a) (3), while also comporting with federal due process requirements … . Archer-Vail v LHV Precast Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00341, Third Dept 1-17-19

 

, ,

THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENT FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES STEMMING FROM A BREACH OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INSURER’S DELAY IN PAYING THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING, WHICH SHIFTED WHEN WORK WAS DONE ON AN ADJOINING BUILDING, RESULTED IN AN ARRAY OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, THE CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ASPECT OF THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had sufficiently alleged consequential damages stemming from the insurer’s alleged delay in paying a claim for damage to plaintiff’s building which shifted after work on an adjoining building. The First Department noted that there is no heightened pleading requirement for consequential damages stemming from a breach of contract. The consequential damages aspect of the  complaint should not have been dismissed:

The complaint alleges that rather than pay the claim, defendant has made unreasonable and increasingly burdensome information demands throughout the three year period since the property damage occurred. Plaintiff contends that this was a tactic by defendant to make the claim so expensive to pursue that plaintiff would abandon it altogether. Plaintiff contends defendant’s investigatory process has taken so long and become so attenuated that the structural damage to the building has worsened. Among the consequential damages alleged are engineering costs, painting, repairs, monitoring equipment, and moisture abatement to address water intrusion, loss of rents, and other expenses attributable to mitigating further damage to the property. …

A plaintiff may sue for consequential damages resulting from an insurer’s failure to provide coverage if such damages (“risks”) were foreseen or should have been foreseen when the contract was made … . … [T]he inquiry is not whether plaintiff will be able to establish its claim, but whether plaintiff has stated a claim.

Here, plaintiff’s allegations meet the pleading requirements of the CPLR with respect to consequential damages, whether in connection with the first cause of action or the second cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the context of an insurance contract … . … [T]here is no heightened pleading standard requiring plaintiff to explain or describe how and why the “specific” categories of consequential damages alleged were reasonable and forseeable at the time of contract. There is no heightened pleading requirement for consequential damages …. Furthermore, an insured’s obligation to “take all reasonable steps to protect the covered property from further damage by a covered cause of loss” supports plaintiff’s allegation that some or all the alleged damages were forseeable … . D.K. Prop., Inc. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 2019 NY Slip Op 00347, First Dept 1-21-19

 

, ,

TIMELINESS OF A MOTION SEEKING CLASS CERTIFICATION IS MEASURED BY THE INITIAL MOTION, NOT A SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO RENEW AFTER DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DEFENDANTS WERE EFFECTIVELY PREVENTING PLAINTIFFS FROM RENEWING THE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION BY REFUSING TO TURN OVER PAYROLL DATA TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint should not have been granted and plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of payroll data should have been granted. Plaintiffs are home health aides employed by defendants. Plaintiffs sought class certification for their Labor Law underpayment claims. Their initial motion for class certification was denied without prejudice. The defendants subsequently moved to dismiss alleging the plaintiffs did not timely move to renew their motion for class certification. The Second Department held that it is the initial motion for class certification which determines timeliness, not any subsequent motion to renew. The court further held that defendants were effectively preventing plaintiffs from renewing their motion by refusing to turn over the payroll data:

The time limitation to file a motion for class certification “applies only to a motion for the initial certification of the class” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ initial motion for class certification was timely made. Moreover, while the defendants contend that the plaintiffs failed to timely renew their motion, the defendants refused to provide material sought by the plaintiffs which was needed to determine whether the prerequisites of a class action set forth in CPLR 901(a) could be satisfied and to address the considerations set forth in CPLR 902 for determining whether the matter may proceed as a class action … . The items of discovery sought are material and necessary to the determination of whether the plaintiffs “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class”… , and the evaluation of whether prosecuting or defending separate actions would be impractical or inefficient and any “difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action” … . Melamed v Americare Certified Special Servs., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00268, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, , ,

BECAUSE THE ANESTHESIOLOGY GROUP (ATLANTIC) WAS ADDED AS A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN BASED SOLELY ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR ITS EMPLOYEE (DEBRADY) WHO HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED, ATLANTIC’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CEASED WHEN DEBRADY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED, ATLANTIC COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER EMPLOYEE WHO WAS NEVER A PARTY (CANTALUPO), ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF SUED A JOHN DOE, NO STEPS WERE TAKEN TO SUBSTITUTE CANTALUPO FOR THE JOHN DOE, ATLANTIC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the relation-back doctrine did not allow plaintiff in this medical malpractice action to sue an anesthesiology group (Atanitic) as a defendant after the statute of limitations had been expired. Atlantic had been added as a defendant after the statute ran when it was discovered that a defendant anesthesiolgist, DeBrady, worked for Atlantic at the time the procedure was performed on plaintiff. DeBrady’s motion for summary judgment was not opposed and was granted. But Supreme Court held that Atlantic could remain a defendant because of the potential liability of another employee of Atlantic, non-party Cantalupo. The Second Department held that Atlantic’s liability was based solely upon respondeat superior as the employer of DeBrady, who was no longer a defendant. The court noted that, although the complaint named a “John Doe, MD,” Cantalupo could not be substituted as a party because plaintiff never moved to substitute Cantalupo and the requirements of CPLR 1024 were not met:

In order for a cause of action asserted against a new defendant to relate back to the date a claim was asserted against another defendant, the plaintiff must establish that “(1) the [cause of action] arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well (… see CPLR 203[b]). In malpractice actions, such as this one, “the defendants are considered united in interest when one is vicariously liable for the acts of the other”… . The second prong of the relation-back doctrine requires unity of interest with a party in the action … .

Since Atlantic was made a party to the action after the expiration of the statute of limitations based solely on its unity of interest with DeBrady, who was timely served, Atlantic’s liability in the instant action cannot be predicated upon vicarious liability for the alleged negligent acts of other employees of Atlantic who are not parties to this action, including nonparty Cantalupo. Accordingly, Atlantic demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it, upon dismissal of the action as against DeBrady … . Ferrara v Jerome Zisfein, 2019 NY Slip Op 00096, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

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