You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

WHERE IT HAS BEEN MORE THAN A YEAR SINCE DEFENDANT FAILED TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT, THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE BEFORE ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; HERE THE FAILURE TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE RENDERED THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined it had been more than a year since defendant Callahan had failed to answer the complaint and, therefore, Callahan was entitled to notice before a default judgment could be entered. No notice was given:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(1), ‘whenever application [for judgment by default] is made to the court or to the clerk, any defendant who has appeared is entitled to at least five days’ notice of the time and place of the application, and if more than one year has elapsed since the default any defendant who has not appeared is entitled to the same notice unless the court orders otherwise'” … . “[T]he failure to provide a defendant who has appeared in an action with the notice required by CPLR 3215(g)(1), like the failure to provide proper notice of other kinds of motions, is a jurisdictional defect that deprives the court of the authority to entertain a motion for leave to enter a default judgment” … . As such, “‘the failure to provide a defendant with proper notice of a motion renders the resulting order and judgment entered upon that order nullities'” … . Flagstar Bank, FSB v Powers, 2025 NY Slip Op 01610, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Where it has been more than a year since defendant failed to answer a complaint, the defendant is entitled to notice before entry of a default judgment. Failure to provide notice renders the judgment a nullity.

 

, , ,

THE SIX-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF WAS REASONABLE AND ENFORCEABLE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION, WHICH WAS COMMENCED SIX MONTHS AND ONE DAY AFTER PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED, WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the six-month statute of limitations in the employment contract with plaintiff was reasonable and enforceable. Therefore plaintiff’s action, which was commenced one day after the six-month limitation period had expired, was time-barred:

“Parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations” … . “‘[A]n agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to [*2]commence an action is enforceable provided it is in writing'” … . CPLR 201 provides that an action “must be commenced within the time specified in this article unless a different time is prescribed by law or a shorter time is prescribed by written agreement.”

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), “‘a moving defendant must establish, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired'” … . Once this threshold showing is met, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to “‘raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or was otherwise inapplicable, or whether the action was actually commenced within the applicable limitations period'” … .

Here, the defendants produced the employment application, which contained the provision regarding the six-month limitations period and which was signed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not dispute that her employment was terminated on November 23, 2021. The defendants therefore established … that the limitations period expired on May 23, 2022. The plaintiff commenced this action on May 24, 2022, one day after the expiration of the limitations period. Salati v Northwell Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 01660, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Here the six-month statute of limitations in plaintiff’s employment contract was deemed reasonable and enforceable. Therefore plaintiff’s employment discrimination action, commenced six months and one day after her employment was terminated, was time-barred.

 

, ,

WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE STAYED; NEITHER PROCEDURE FOR LIFTING THE STAY WAS INVOKED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a stay of the foreclosure action was in effect because of the suspension of defendant McGrath’s attorney. Because plaintiff never served McGrath with the required notice to lift the stay, the summary judgment order should have been vacated:

When an attorney is suspended from the practice of law, “as with an attorney’s death, incapacitation, removal from an action, or other disability, CPLR 321(c) protects the client by automatically staying the action from the date of the disabling event” … . “The express language of CPLR 321(c) sets no particular time limit to the stay of proceedings that is automatically triggered by a qualifying event” … .

“[D]uring the stay imposed by CPLR 321(c), no proceedings against the party will have any adverse effect” … , and “[o]rders or judgments that are rendered in violation of the stay provisions of CPLR 321(c) must be vacated” … .

“[T]here are actually two ways in which a CPLR 321(c) stay may be lifted. One way is if the party that lost its counsel retains new counsel at its own initiative, or otherwise communicates an intention to proceed pro se” … . “The second way is by means of [a] notice procedure pursuant to CPLR 321(c)” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not serve McGrath with the notice to appoint “either personally or in such manner as the court direct[ed]” (CPLR 321[c]). It is undisputed that no attempt was made to personally serve the required notice, nor is it alleged that the Supreme Court directed that service of the notice be made in some other manner … . Moreover, it is undisputed that McGrath did not communicate an intention to proceed pro se … . Therefore, the automatic stay was not lifted until McGrath opposed the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and cross-moved to vacate the summary judgment order … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v McGrath, 2025 NY Slip Op 01614, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: When a party’s attorney is suspended, the proceedings are automatically stayed. There are two statutory procedures for lifting the stay, neither of which was invoked here.

 

,

THE MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND JOIN AN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint and to join another action should have been granted. The proposed amendment was not time-barred because the original complaint gave notice of the transactions and occurrences upon which the amendment is based. The motion to join another action should have been granted because there were common questions of law or fact and defendants would not be prejudiced:

While a proposed amendment generally is considered patently devoid of merit if it is time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations” … , here, the proposed amendment relates back to the original complaint and is deemed to have been timely interposed because the original complaint gave “notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences” on which the claims in the proposed amended complaint were based (CPLR 203[f] …). [Defendants] failed to establish that they were prejudiced or surprised by the plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave to amend the complaint, as discovery was still ongoing at the time the plaintiff’s motion was made … , the proposed amended complaint was “premised upon the same facts, transactions, or occurrences” alleged in the original complaint … , and the proposed amendment merely elaborated on the same theory of liability alleged in the original complaint … . …

The Supreme Court also improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 602(a) to join Action No. 2 with Action No. 1 for purposes of trial. “Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion to consolidate or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602(a) should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion” … . Here, Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 both arise from the project, concern the same parties, and involve common questions of law and fact … , and a failure to try the two actions jointly would result in a “duplication of trials, unnecessary costs and expense, and a danger of an injustice resulting from divergent decisions” … . Contrary to the contentions of KGD and OLA, the possibility of prejudice resulting from a joint trial can be mitigated by appropriate jury instructions … , and any potential prejudice is outweighed by the possibility of inconsistent verdicts if separate trials ensue … .  Great Neck Lib. v Kaeyer, Garment & Davidson Architects, P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 01613, Second Dept 3-19-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for amending a complaint, including a determination whether the amendment is time-barred (it is not if the original complaint gave notice of the transactions or occurrences referenced in the amendment).

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for consolidating two actions which involve common questions of law or fact.

 

, , ,

WHERE THERE IS A FACTUAL DISPUTE ON A MATERIAL ISSUE WHICH MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE COURT CAN DECIDE A LEGAL ISSUE, THE FACTUAL DISPUTE MUST BE RESOLVED IN A HEARING BEFORE THE COURT CAN DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE; WHETHER THE RECORD GIVES RISE TO A FACTUAL DISPUTE ON A MATERIAL ISSUE IS A QUESTION OF LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a factual dispute about whether an attorney (Santamarina) validly waived personal jurisdiction on behalf of defendant Koukis required a hearing:

Supreme Court decided Mr. Koukis’s motion without a factual hearing, holding that Mr. Santamarina lacked authority to act on Mr. Koukis’s behalf and vacating his waiver of personal jurisdiction and service defenses. But Supreme Court concluded that personal jurisdiction existed over Mr. Koukis pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (2). It therefore set the matter down for a traverse hearing to determine if service on Mr. Koukis of the summons and complaint was proper.

Before the traverse hearing occurred, the Appellate Division modified the order of Supreme Court by vacating the default judgment and granting Mr. Koukis’s motion to dismiss based upon a lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Division held that “there was no basis to conclude that Koukis authorized Santamarina to appear and waive all jurisdictional defenses on his behalf” … . Additionally, the majority departed from Supreme Court in its analysis of CPLR 302 (a) (2), concluding that the court did not have personal jurisdiction and dismissing the complaint in its entirety … . Two Justices partially dissented on the ground that Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether Mr. Santamarina had the authority to represent Mr. Koukis … . We now reverse on the basis that there is a material factual dispute as to whether Mr. Koukis authorized or ratified the waiver of personal jurisdiction

[Plaintiff] was entitled to a factual hearing to determine whether Mr. Santamarina validly appeared on Mr. Koukis’s behalf and waived personal jurisdiction. Where the record shows a “factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue,” the court may not grant the motion without first holding a hearing (… see … CPLR 2218). Whether the record gives rise to such a factual dispute is a question of law … .Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v Koukis, 2025 NY Slip Op 01565, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: Here there was a factual dispute on a material issue which had to be decided before the related legal question could be answered. Therefore a hearing was required to resolve the factual issue before the court addressed the legal issue. Whether a factual dispute on a material issue exists raises a question of law.

 

, ,

THE INFORMATION IN THE CHILD-VICTIMS-ACT CLAIM WAS NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE STATE TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BETWEEN 1986 AND 1990; CLAIM DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan,, determined the Child Victims Act claim did not provide sufficient information to allow the State to investigate the allegations of sexual abuse between 1986 and 1990:

… [W]e conclude that Wright’s [claimant’s] claim lacks the specificity section [Court of Claims Act] 11 (b) requires. Because the allegations are too spare to enable the State promptly to investigate and ascertain the existence and extent of its liability, the claim suffers a jurisdictional defect and therefore must be dismissed.

The claim lacks critical information about the abusers. It alleges that the perpetrators included teachers, coaches, counselors, and perhaps other employees of the State, but it does not explain whether those employees were Wright’s teachers, coaches, and counselors, or why, as a child, he was in their company multiple times between 1986 and 1990. The claim also alleges that members of the public were responsible for some of the abuse he suffered, but it does not explain why Wright came into contact with those persons as a child, the context in which adult supervision of any particular activity allegedly should have been provided, or the extent to which the State bore responsibility for Wright’s contact with the abusers. Nor does the claim adequately allege what repeatedly brought Wright to The Egg [a State performing arts center] over a four-year period in the late 1980s, or why, once on the premises, he frequently engaged with both members of the public and State employees.

In the absence of such information, the State cannot promptly investigate the claim and determine its liability under Wright’s theories of negligence. … The State is left to “guess” whether at any point during the four-year period alleged in the claim it owed some duty to Wright and, if so, whether it breached that obligation … . But it “is not the State’s burden . . . to assemble information” not included in a claim so that it may promptly investigate and assess its liability … . Section 11 (b) places that burden on the claimant. Wright v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01564, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: If the claim in a Child Victims Act suit against the State does not provide enough information to allow the State to investigate, it will be deemed to lack the specificity required by Court of Claims Act section 11 (b) and will be dismissed.​

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT STATE PAROLE OFFICER WAS DRIVING A STATE-OWNED VEHICLE AND ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY BROUGHT SUIT IN SUPREME COURT AS OPPOSED TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Correction Law did not require that plaintiff bring this traffic accident case involving a Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) parole officer in the Court of Claims. Although the defendant officer was driving a State-owned vehicle and was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident, the lawsuit was properly brought in Supreme Court:

“Not every suit against an officer of the State, however, is a suit against the State” … . “A suit against a State officer will be held to be one which is really asserted against the State when it arises from actions or determinations of the officer made in his or her official role and involves rights asserted, not against the officer individually, but solely against the State” … . If, however, “the suit against the State agent or officer is in tort for damages arising from the breach of a duty owed individually by such agent or officer directly to the injured party, the State is not the real party in interest—even though it could be held secondarily liable for the tortious acts under respondeat superior” … .

Correction Law § 24 (2) provides that claims for damages “arising out of any act done or the failure to perform any act within the scope of the employment and in the discharge of the duties” of any State employee shall be brought in the Court of Claims as claims against the State. Thus, Correction Law § 24 “places actions for money damages against [DOCCS] employees within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims only where the conduct alleged is within the scope of the officer’s employment and in the discharge of his or her official duties” … .

Here, the complaint asserts a single cause of action based on allegations that defendant operated the vehicle in a negligent manner, i.e., that defendant’s alleged negligence arises from her violation of a duty she owed plaintiff as a fellow driver, and not as a DOCCS employee. Thus, plaintiff’s action is “against . . . defendant individually for an alleged breach of a duty of care owed by the defendant directly to [plaintiff], and not one against State officers as representatives of the State in their official capacity which had to be brought in the Court of Claims pursuant to Correction Law § 24” … . Maiorana v Green, 2025 NY Slip Op 01518, Fourth Dept 12-14-25

Practice Point: Although the defendant parole officer was acting within the scope of her employment when she was driving the state-owned vehicle, the traffic accident allegedly breached a duty of care owed directly to the plaintiff by the defendant as a fellow driver, not as a state employee.

 

, , , ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING THE PURPORTED “OFF THE RECORD” STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WERE NEVER FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK; A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE WITH THE JUDGE’S CLERK DOES NOT MEET THE “OPEN COURT” REQUIREMENT FOR A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the purported stipulation of settlement of this legal malpractice action did not meet the requisite criteria and could not be enforced:

It is well settled that ” ‘[a]n oral stipulation of settlement that is made in open court and stenographically recorded is enforceable as a contract and is governed by general contract principles for its interpretation and effect’ ” (… see generally CPLR 2104). Here, however, in support of her cross-motion, plaintiff failed to attach any transcripts or other evidence substantiating the purported settlement agreement. Indeed, we conclude that “[t]he record provides no basis for concluding that an enforceable stipulation was entered into between the parties” inasmuch as “[p]ertinent discussions took place off the record” … . Plaintiff also failed to establish that the terms of the settlement agreement were ever filed with the county clerk (see CPLR 2104 …).

Even if plaintiff had submitted written evidence of the parties’ purported stipulation of settlement, we conclude that said stipulation was not entered in “open court” inasmuch as there is no dispute that the alleged settlement was reached during a pretrial conference with the court’s law clerk … . Indeed, the “open court requirement . . . is not satisfied in locations without a Justice presiding . . . , and it is not satisfied during less formal stages of litigation, such as a pretrial conference” … . Guzman-Martinez v Rosado, 2025 NY Slip Op 01483, Fourth Dept 3-14-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for an enforceable stipulation of settlement, i.e., a transcript or other evidence of the terms of any oral agreement, the filing of the terms of the agreement with the county clerk, and the entering of the agreement in open court with a judge presiding.

 

, ,

HERE THE PLAINTIFF WAS IN PRIVITY WITH A NONPARTY WHICH WAS DEEMED TO HAVE HAD A “VICARIOUS DAY IN COURT” SUCH THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA PRECLUDED PLAINTIFF’S ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-ledged opinion by Justice Scarpulla, determined the doctrine of res judicata required dismissal of plaintiff’s fraudulent conveyance cause of action. The lawsuit concerned disputed ownership of precious gems. The opinion is fact-specific and too complex to fairly summarize here. With respect to the application of the res judicata doctrine, the court wrote:

This appeal stems from a dispute between precious gemstone traders. Plaintiff Shanghai Pearls & Gems, Inc. … alleges that defendants … improperly transferred gems they received on consignment from nonparty Diamond Corporation Capital Group, LLC (D&M). The transferred gems included the “Pink Diamond,” in which plaintiff held a one-third interest, and the “Kashmir Sapphire.” * * *

Although defendants’ settlement with D&M did not release plaintiff’s original one-third interest in the Pink Diamond, plaintiff’s fraudulent conveyance claims based on that interest should be dismissed because the claims are barred by res judicata. Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, a valid final judgment precludes “future actions between the same parties or those in privity with them on any claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions . . . , even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” … .

A determination that privity exists, in the context of res judicata, must be based on a “flexible analysis” of the relationship between the party and the nonparty in the previous litigation … . This analysis, in turn, requires courts to consider “whether the circumstances of the actual relationship, the mutuality of interests, and the manner in which the nonparty’s interest were represented in the earlier litigation established a functional representation such that the nonparty may be thought to have had a vicarious day in court” … .

Here, plaintiff was in privity with D&M vis-À-vis the assignment of the interests in the Pink Diamond and Kashmir Sapphire. D&M’s claims against defendants in the bankruptcy proceeding and plaintiff’s claims against defendants in this action “are closely related in time, space, motivation, or origin” such that the claims “arise out of the same transaction, and res judicata should apply” … . Shanghai Pearls & Gems, Inc. v Paul, 2025 NY Slip Op 01433, First Dept 3-13-25

Practice Point: Although this opinion is complicated and fact-specific, it provides useful insight into the flexibility of the “privity” element of the res judicata doctrine. Here the nonparty with which plaintiff was in privity was deemed to have had a “vicarious day in court” triggering the application of the res judicata doctrine to the plaintiff’s action.

 

, ,

THE TREBLE DAMAGES PROVISION IN RPAPL 861 FOR THE IMPROPER TRIMMING OR REMOVAL OF TREES FROM ANOTHER’S PROPERTY IS PUNITIVE IN NATURE; HERE THE TOWN TRIMMED AND REMOVED TREES FROM PLAINTIFF’S LAND; BECAUSE A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT BE ASSESSED PUNITIVE DAMAGES, THE TREBLE DAMAGES AWARD WAS REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the treble damages provision in RPAPL 861 is punitive in nature and therefore cannot be imposed upon a municipality. Here the town removed and trimmed trees along a roadway. Plaintiff, the owner of the land abutting the road, sued and was awarded treble damages. The Appellate Division had concluded the treble damages provision was compensatory, not punitive:

RPAPL 861 provides that “[i]f any person, without the consent of the owner thereof, cuts, removes, injures or destroys . . . tree[s] or timber on the land of another . . . an action may be maintained against such person for treble the stumpage value of the tree or timber or two hundred fifty dollars per tree, or both and for any permanent and substantial damage caused to the land or the improvements thereon . . . .” … .

* * * Treble damages are the default measure for any recovery, but the statute also provides that “if the defendant establishes by clear and convincing evidence, that when the defendant committed the violation, he or she had cause to believe the land was his or her own, or that he or she had an easement or right of way across such land which permitted such action, or he or she had a legal right to harvest such land, then he or she shall be liable for the stumpage value or two hundred fifty dollars per tree, or both . . . .” …

In other words, the defendant’s good faith “does not insulate that person from the imposition of statutory damages, but merely saves him or her from having to pay the plaintiff treble damages” .. . * * *

The “good faith” provision in RPAPL 861 demonstrates the punitive nature of the treble damages available under the statute. Matter of Rosbaugh v Town of Lodi, 2025 NY Slip Op 01406, CtApp 3-13-25

Practice Point: Here the statute allowed treble damages for the removal of trees only if the removal was not in good faith. Therefore the treble damages provision was punitive in nature. Punitive damages cannot be assessed against a municipality, here the town which removed the trees.​

 

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