You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT IS UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, NEW YORK’S SHORTER STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly applied New York’s borrowing statute (CPLR 202) and chose the shorter of the statutes of limitations for a legal malpractice action. New York’s statute is three years and New Jersey’s is six years. Plaintiff was a New Jersey resident:

The court correctly found the complaint time-barred under CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute,” which requires a claim to be timely under both the New York limitations period and that of the jurisdiction where the claim is alleged to have arisen (Kat House Prods., LLC v Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 71 AD3d 580[1st Dept 2010]).

Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleged legal malpractice in connection with defendants’ representation of him for numerous real estate transactions, a cause of action which has a three year statute of limitations in New York (CPLR 214 [6]), and a six year limitations period in New Jersey (NJ Stat Ann § 2A:14-1). The latest that the alleged malpractice could have occurred was February 7, 2013, the date set for closing on the last of the real estate matters. Because plaintiff commenced the action on October 28, 2016, more than three years later, it was correctly dismissed as untimely. Soloway v Kane Kessler, PC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00026 [168 AD3d 407], First Dept 1-3-19

 

, ,

THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PURSUANT TO THE RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY OF LIABILITY, AFTER THE ACTION WAS STARTED PLAINTIFF LEARNED THAT THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS A PASSENGER WAS PAID BY THE EMPLOYER TO TRANSPORT THE OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE CAR TO WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the relation-back doctrine (CPLR 203(f)) allowed plaintiff, Polanco, to serve a supplemental summons and complaint against the employer of Elias-Tejada, the driver of the car in which plaintiff’s decedent was a passenger. The Elias-Tejada car stalled on a bridge and was struck from behind. Plaintiff (Polanco) did not learn until after the action was started that Elias-Tejada was paid by his employer, Fairway, to transport the other occupants of his car, all Fairway employees, to work. Plaintiff (Polanco) sought to add Fairway as a defendant under a respondeat superior theory and the First Department held he could do so:

The claims that Polanco seeks to assert against Fairway arise out of the same occurrence as alleged in the complaint against Elias-Tejada [and the other two defendant drivers]. … [W]e find that Polanco also satisfied the second condition, because under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer will be vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee committed while the employee is acting in the scope of his or her employment … . Based on Elias-Tejada’s employer/employee relationship with Fairway, they are united in interest because a judgment against one of them will similarly affect the other … . … [T]he Fairway defendants can, therefore, be charged as having notice of Polanco’s potential claims against them, based upon the claims asserted against Elias-Tejada in the original summons and complaint … . …

… Only later, after depositions were held, including those of a key Fairway employee and Elias-Tejada, did [plaintiff] learn that Fairway compensated Elias-Tejada for hosting the car pool and that this travel arrangement was condoned, if not actually implemented and encouraged, by Fairway’s human resources department because Fairway reimbursed him for tolls and mileage. Ramirez v Elias-Tejada, 2019 NY Slip Op 00021, First Dept  1-3-19

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

DEFENDANTS NEVER INTERPOSED AN ANSWER SO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY DENIED, MATTER REMITTED SO PLAINTIFF CAN MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because defendants never interposed an answer. The Third Department further determined defendants’ motion for permission to serve a late answer was properly denied. The matter was remitted to afford plaintiff the opportunity to make a late motion for a default judgment. The underlying matter is plaintiff’s action to recover the cost of cleaning up a highway accident involving defendants’ truck:

Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment because defendants never filed an answer and, thus, issue was not joined, a prerequisite that is “strictly adhered to”… . Further, summary judgment was not granted here pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) … . Even if defendants are deemed to have appeared by filing a notice of removal of the action to federal court or by other conduct (see CPLR 320 [a]), they did not file a responsive pleading (see CPLR 3011) and, consequently, plaintiff was barred from seeking summary judgment … . …

Although Supreme Court possessed discretion to permit late service of an answer “upon a showing of [a] reasonable excuse for [the] delay or default” (CPLR 3012 [d]…), the reasonableness of the excuse “is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors”… . … We discern no basis for finding that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying defendants’ motion, given the absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay … . Gerster’s Triple E. Towing & Repair, Inc. v Pishon Trucking, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08979, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE TAX AND WAGE DOCUMENTS AND TO PROVIDE FACTUAL BASES FOR THEIR REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED DEFENDANTS’ BLANKET ASSERTIONS OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE IN THIS CONTEMPT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM AN ACTION TO RECOVER A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the defendant’s blanket assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his wife’s assertion of her Fifth Amendment and her spousal privileges did not justify the denial of plaintiff’s motion to hold defendant in contempt or the denial of a motion to compel defendant’s wife to submit to a deposition and produce documents. Plaintiff sought payment of a multi-million dollar deficiency judgment. The Third Department explained that tax returns, W-2 forms and 1099 forms fall withing the “required records exception” to the privilege against self-incrimination. The Third Department further found that defendant and his wife must provide a factual basis for their refusal to answer each of the 358 questions posed by plaintiff because there had been no showing that criminal proceedings against the defendant were imminent or that the spousal privilege was applicable:

… [D]efendant’s income tax returns, W-2 wage statements and 1099 forms — fall within the “required records exception” to the privilege against self-incrimination. Under this exception, “[t]he Fifth Amendment privilege which exists as to private papers cannot be asserted with respect to records which are required, by law, to be kept and which are subject to governmental regulation and inspection” … . “To constitute ‘required records,’ the documents must satisfy a three-part test: (1) the requirement that they be kept must be essentially regulatory, (2) the records must be of a kind which the regulated party has customarily kept, and (3) the records themselves must have assumed ‘public aspects’ which render them analogous to public documents” … . …

… [I]t is not evident that every answer to the 358 questions propounded during the May 2015 deposition, and every disclosure of the remaining documents requested in the subpoena, would subject defendant to a real and substantial danger of self-incrimination. The questions put to defendant were those customarily asked at a judgment debtor examination, and there is no indication that the purpose of the deposition was “anything other than an ordinary search of [defendant’s] assets in order to satisfy the judgment against him” … . … [T]here is nothing in this record indicating, nor does defendant assert, that he is the subject of any criminal investigation or proceeding. More to the point, defendant has not shown that his claimed fear of prosecution is anything other than “imaginary” … .

… [W]e conclude that Supreme Court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Chava Nelkenbaum [defendant’s wife] must be reversed and the matter remitted for an in camera inquiry to test the validity of her invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege as to each of the questions asked and each of the documents demanded of her. To the extent that Chava Nelkenbaum invoked the spousal privilege as a basis for refusing to answer certain questions propounded at the deposition or to produce documents responsive to the subpoena, we note that the privilege “attaches only to those statements made in confidence and ‘that are induced by the marital relation and prompted by the affection, confidence and loyalty engendered by such relationship'” … . Further, this privilege does not attach to “ordinary conversations relating to matters of business” … . Carver Fed. Sav. Bank v Shaker Gardens, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08975, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

,

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF PLAINTIFF’S ESTATE FOR THE DECEASED PLAINTIFF PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE DELAY IN SEEKING SUBSTITUTION WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THE MERITS WERE NOT DESCRIBED, AND THE EXISTENCE OF PREJUDICE WAS NOT REBUTTED, HOWEVER THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED ABSENT THE SUBSTITUTION OF A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department agreed with Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to substitute plaintiff’s daughter, as administratrix, for the deceased plaintiff in an action because the delay in seeking substitution was not explained, the merits of the action were not described, and the presumption of prejudice was not rebutted. But the Second Department noted that the action should not have been dismissed because the plaintiff’s stayed all proceedings pending substitution:

CPLR 1021 provides, in part, that “[a] motion for substitution may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party.” Although a determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity, determinations regarding substitution pursuant to CPLR 1021 are a necessary exception to the general rule, and the court does not lack jurisdiction to consider such a motion … . Here, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to consider those branches of the motion which were pursuant to CPLR 1015 for leave to substitute the plaintiff’s daughter as the plaintiff and, upon substitution, to restore the action thereafter (see CPLR 1021). On the merits, we agree with the court’s determination to deny those branches of the motion given the failure to provide any detailed excuse for the delay in seeking substitution, the failure to include an affidavit of merit demonstrating that the claim against Rehab was potentially meritorious, and the failure to rebut Rehab’s claim of prejudice stemming from the delay … .

However, since the plaintiff’s death triggered a stay of all proceedings in the action pending substitution of a legal representative … , the Supreme Court should not have directed dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404, as the order was issued after the plaintiff’s death and in the absence of any substitution of a legal representative … . Medlock v Dr. William O. Benenson Rehabilitation Pavilion, 2018 NY Slip Op 08922, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

, ,

THERE WAS NO PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENSE VERDICT FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER A SERIOUS INJURY WAS NECESSARILY BASED ON THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY, VERDICT WAS PROPERLY SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict in this traffic accident case was properly granted. Plaintiff had been granted summary judgment on liability and proceeded to trial on damages. Defendants’ expert, McGowan, purported to analyze the forces involved in the collision and opined that the impact could not have caused plaintiff’s injuries. The jury returned a verdict finding that plaintiff did not suffer a “serious injury:”

… [W]e agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages… . “An expert’s opinion must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness'”… . Here, a proper foundation was lacking for the admission of McGowan’s opinion … . Among other things, McGowan failed to calculate the force exerted by all four vehicles, the crash test he utilized to determine the delta-v differed in several significant respects from the instant accident, and he reviewed simulations in which the weight of the dummies was not similar to that of the plaintiff. Imran v R. Barany Monuments, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08921, Second Dept 12-26-18

,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS SUPPORTED BY A SWORN DENIAL OF SERVICE AND SPECIFIC FACTS WHICH REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion to vacate his default in this foreclosure action should not have been denied without a hearing to determine whether he was served. Defendant’s motion was supported by a sworn denial of service and specific facts, which was sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service:

“Ordinarily, a process server’s affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service and, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service” … . To be entitled to vacatur of a default judgment under CPLR 5015(a)(4), a defendant must overcome the presumption raised by the process server’s affidavit of service … . “Although bare and unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service, a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the affidavit of service and necessitates a hearing” … . A determination as to whether service was properly made pursuant to CPLR 308(1), as here, turns on issues of credibility, which should be determined by a hearing … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Alverado, 2018 NY Slip Op 08918, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

INDICATING INCONSISTENT DECISIONS SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED, THE SECOND DEPT DETERMINED SUPREME COURT COULD NOT DISMISS A CASE BASED ON THE FAILURE TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE COURT’S ORDER UNLESS THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 ARE COMPLIED WITH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and departing from precedent, determined that, because the court had not complied with CPLR 3216, the action had never been dismissed and plaintiff’s very late (three years) motion to restore the matter to calendar should have been granted. In January 2013 the court certified the matter ready for trial and directed plaintiff to file a note of issue within 90 days in an order which stated the failure to file the note of issue will result in dismissal without further order. Plaintiff moved to restore the matter in January, 2016:

… [T]he court order which purported to serve as a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 “was defective in that it failed to state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice will serve as a basis for a motion’ by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute”… . Moreover, the record contains no evidence that the court ever made a motion to dismiss, or that there was an “order” of the court dismissing the case … , “[i]t is evident from this record that the case was ministerially dismissed,” without the court having made a motion, and “without the entry of any formal order by the court dismissing the matter” … . The procedural device of dismissing an action for failure to prosecute is a legislative creation, not a part of a court’s inherent power … , and, therefore, a court desiring to dismiss an action based upon the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute must follow the statutory preconditions under CPLR 3216.

Since the action was not properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to restore the action to the active calendar. To the extent that prior cases from this Court are inconsistent with the holding herein (see e.g. Stroll v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 151 AD3d 789; Duranti v Dream Works Constr., Inc., 139 AD3d 1000, 1000; Bender v Autism Speaks, Inc., 139 AD3d 989; Dai Mang Kim v Hwak Yung Kim, 118 AD3d 661, 661; Bhatti v Empire Realty Assoc., Inc., 101 AD3d 1066, 1067), henceforth they should no longer be followed. Element E, LLC v Allyson Enters., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08915, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON THE REVERSE MORTGAGE WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to foreclose on the reverse mortgage. The evidence submitted did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, among other things, the affidavit of Stephen Craycroft, an assistant secretary of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, who attested that the plaintiff was in possession of the note at the time of the commencement of this action. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Craycroft under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]), since Craycroft did not clearly attest that he was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures … . Inasmuch as the plaintiff’s cross motion was based on evidence that was not in admissible form, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the copy of the note annexed to the summons and complaint was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, its standing to commence the action, since the note bore a specific endorsement to an entity other than the plaintiff … . Nationstar HECM Acquisition Trust 2015-2 v Andrews, 2018 NY Slip Op 08944, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHED THE RECORD AND ISSUED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ALLOWING PLANTIFFS TO PAVE AN EASEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, searched the record and issued a declaratory judgment allowing plaintiffs to pave an easement and further should not have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have an easement which allows access to their driveway. Plaintiffs alleged the easement needed to be paved because their vehicle would hit bottom crossing it:

A party’s right of passage over an easement carries with it the ” right to maintain it in a reasonable condition for such use’ “… . The right to repair and maintain an easement includes “the right to carry out work as necessary to reasonably permit the passage of vehicles and, in so doing, to not only remove impediments but supply deficiencies in order to construct [or repair] a suitable road’ “… . The right to repair and maintain, however, is “limited to those actions necessary to effectuate the express purpose of [the] easement’ ” … , and thus the work performed must not “materially increase the burden of the servient estate[] or impose new and additional burdens on the servient estate[]” … . Relatedly, the servient landowner has a “corresponding right[] to have the natural condition of the terrain preserved, as nearly as possible’ . . . and to insist that the easement enjoyed shall remain substantially as it was at the time it accrued, regardless of whether benefit or damage will result from a proposed change’ ” … . …

Defendant contends on his appeal that the court erred in searching the record and entering a declaratory judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. We agree. As an initial matter, although plaintiffs did not seek declaratory relief, the court has the authority to “grant any type of relief within its jurisdiction appropriate to the proof whether or not demanded, imposing such terms as may be just” (CPLR 3017 [a]…). We conclude, however, that the declaration was not appropriate given the evidence presented here. Tarsel v Trombino, 2018 NY Slip Op 08779, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

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