You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, determined that CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503, which require an out-of-state litigant to post a minimum of $500 security for costs in case the nonresident loses, does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause:

When plaintiff commenced this personal injury action, she was a New York resident. Plaintiff then relocated to Georgia, prompting defendants to move, pursuant to CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503, for an order compelling plaintiff—a nonresident at the time the motion was made—to post a minimum of $500 security for costs in the event she lost the case (see CPLR 8101). Defendants also requested a stay of the proceedings pursuant to CPLR 8502 until plaintiff complied with the order. In opposition, plaintiff argued that CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503 were unconstitutional because they violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Federal Constitution by impairing nonresident plaintiffs’ fundamental right of access to the courts.

Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion, opining that although access to the courts is a fundamental right protectable under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, CPLR 8501 (a) and 8503 do not bar access to the courts … . Supreme Court further stated that security for costs provisions are common nationwide … .

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed. The court held that CPLR article 85 satisfied the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Canadian Northern R.R. Co. v Eggen (252 US 553 [1920]), and re-affirmed in McBurney v Young (569 US 221 [2013]), that nonresidents must be given “access to the courts of the state upon terms which in themselves are reasonable and adequate for the enforcing of any rights [they] may have” … . On that basis, the Appellate Division held that “the challenged statutory provisions do not deprive noncitizens of New York of reasonable and adequate access to New York courts” … . … [[W]e … affirm. Clement v Durban, 2018 NY Slip Op 07693, CtApp 11-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/CPLR 8501, 8503 (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/COSTS  (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))/PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CPLR 8501 AND 8503, WHICH REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE LITIGANT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS IN CASE THE NONRESIDENT LOSES THE CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (CT APP))

, , ,

UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the shareholder derivative action against HSBC (bank) alleging breach of a fiduciary duty to implement money laundering prevention safeguards should not have been dismissed. The nominal defendant, HSBC Holdings, is organized under the laws of the United Kingdom and is headquartered in London. The motion to dismiss alleged the failure to seek permission for the action from the English High Court, as well as the failure to demonstrate the futility of seeking redress from the corporation, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens, required dismissal of the complaint. The Second Department held that the rule requiring permission of the English court was procedural and therefore the law of the forum (New York), not the United Kingdom, applied. The Second Department further held that the complaint demonstrated the futility of first seeking redress from the corporation and New York was the proper forum:

… [T]he Court of Appeals decided Davis v Scottish Re Group Ltd. (30 NY3d 247), which held that a Cayman Islands court rule requiring plaintiffs in shareholder derivative actions to first apply to the Cayman Islands Grand Court for leave to continue the action is a procedural rule of the Cayman Islands, and “therefore does not apply where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to litigate his derivative claims in New York” … . … Based upon the analysis set forth in Davis, we find that the judicial-permission requirement set forth in the UK Companies Act is a procedural rule applicable only in England and Wales, or Northern Ireland. …

As an alternative ground for affirmance … , the nominal defendants contend that the plaintiff lacks standing under New York law pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 626(c) because the amended complaint fails to allege that the plaintiff made efforts to secure initiation of the action by the board itself or set forth the reasons for not making such effort … . * * *

In view of the illegal purpose, magnitude, and duration of the alleged wrongdoing, as well as the identity of beneficiaries to the transactions, the allegations were such that the transactions should have come to the attention of senior management and the board of directors … . * * *

… [G]iven that the allegations of wrongdoing occurred in New York, that only 21 of the 75 individual defendants live and work outside of New York, and that 3 of the nominal defendants are either incorporated or headquartered in New York, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the nominal defendants were not entitled to dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens [CPLR 327]. Mason-Mahon v Flint, 2018 NY Slip Op 07716, Second Dept 11-14-18

CORPORATION LAW (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CORPORATION LAW, UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/BANKING LAW  (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/FIDUCIARY DUTY (CORPORATION LAW, UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MONEY LAUNDERING (BANKING LAW, UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 327  (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 626 (UK LAW REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION TO BRING A SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS PROCEDURAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST LONDON-BASED HSBC FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT MONEY-LAUNDERING PROTECTIONS, COMPLAINT DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF FIRST SEEKING REDRESS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint seeking specific performance, based on the language of the real estate purchase contract, should have been granted. Plaintiff was the highest bidder on real property and signed a purchase contract but did not appear on the closing dates:

… [W]e find that the terms and conditions of the contract of sale utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations and establish a defense as a matter of law. The contract clearly provides that the plaintiff’s failure to close pursuant to the terms and conditions of sale will result in a forfeiture of the down payment; that in the event the closing is postponed at the plaintiff’s request, then the adjourned date shall be deemed the final law date; that the plaintiff’s failure to close on the final law date shall entitle the County to cancel the sale and to retain the down payment; and, in those circumstances, the plaintiff waives all claims of any right, title and interest in the subject property and the down payment. Additionally, the terms and conditions of the contract of sale demonstrate that a material fact claimed by the plaintiff—the alleged breach of contract by the County—is not a fact at all, and no significant dispute exists regarding it. Mahmood v County of Suffolk, 2018 NY Slip Op 07715, Second Dept 11-14-18

CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE  (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff-decedent’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should not have been granted. Decedent’s statement to his wife in the emergency room, to the effect he should not have used the ladder as he did, was admissible as a declaration against interest. There was evidence from a co-worker that the ladder may not have been the cause of decedent’s injuries, i.e., there was evidence decedent was suffering chest pains 10 feet away from the ladder, which was upright. The court noted that factual assertions included in a memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff-decedent’s motion were properly considered and preserved issues for appeal:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim by presenting decedent’s statement that he was working on a ladder when it started to move, and when he tried to stabilize the ladder, it tipped and struck him in the chest … . Plaintiff was not “required to present further evidence that the ladder was defective” … .

However, defendants raised triable issues of fact as to whether decedent’s injuries were caused by an accident involving a ladder. Two accident reports set forth his alleged statement that he was working on the ladder when he started feeling chest pains and his legs became “unsteady” or “wobbly.” Moreover, decedent’s coworker, who was working in the same apartment unit separated from decedent by a concrete wall but went over to decedent’s area, not in response to any commotion but for routine purposes, saw that the ladder was in the upright position about 10 feet away from decedent when he expressed that he was suffering from chest pains … . Although decedent was disoriented and unable to answer basic questions at some points, he eventually became alert while in the hospital, yet his medical records do not refer to any ladder accident.

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, defendants preserved their arguments about triable issues of fact by asserting them in their memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion. Caminiti v Extell W. 57th St. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07667, First Dept 11-13-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST  (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (PRESERVATION, (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s award should have been confirmed. The dispute concerned a broker’s fee provision in a lease. The arbitrator reasoned that the lease provision did not control because at the time the tenants bought the property the lease had expired and tenancy was month to month. The First Department explained the extremely limited court-review powers re: arbitration awards:

CPLR 7511 provides just four grounds for vacating an arbitration award, including that the arbitrator “exceeded his power” (CPLR 7511[b][1][iii]), which “occurs only where the arbitrator’s award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power”… . Mere errors of fact or law are insufficient to vacate an arbitral award … . “[C]ourts are obligated to give deference to the decision of the arbitrator, … even if the arbitrator misapplied the substantive law in the area of the contract” … .

Here, the arbitrator’s conclusion that a sales commission was not due under the precise terms of the Agreement because the lease was not extended is neither wholly irrational nor contrary to any strong public policy … . Matter of NRT N.Y. LLC v Spell, 2018 NY Slip Op 07664, First Dept 11-13-18

ARBITRATION (ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, LIMITED COURT-REVIEW POWERS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))

,

MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT).

he Fourth Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court), determined a motion seeking summary judgment on the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should not have been granted on a ground not raised in the motion. Defendants alleged the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should be dismissed because plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The judge, sua sponte, searched the record and granted summary judgment on a different ground:

… [T]he court erred in searching the record and granting summary judgment to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, although defendants did not advance their contention before the trial court, we conclude that the contention is properly before us because defendants lacked an opportunity to raise it at any time before this appeal … . Further, ” [a] motion for summary judgment on one claim or defense does not provide a basis for searching the record and granting summary judgment on an unrelated claim or defense’ ” … . Here, the only issue raised with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action was on defendants’ motion, wherein they asserted that dismissal was warranted on the ground that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court therefore erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff based on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (c) and 23-3.3 (c). Lord v Whelan & Curry Constr. Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07563, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))/JUDGES   (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))/SUA SPONTE LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted, noting that plaintiff’s argument in the reply papers should have been considered because it was a response to defendants’ opposition motion:

Plaintiff was injured when a metal shim plate affixed to a steel column, that was being installed as part of a temporary truss system, suddenly detached and hit him in the head. Plaintiff established that the accident was proximately caused by the undisputed failure of safety devices that were supposed to afford proper protection against the elevation-related risks that plaintiff faced during the installation of the column being hoisted into place … . The tack welds used to secure the metal shim plate to the column were “safety devices” for the purposes of Labor Law § 240(1) because they were intended to be a temporary measure to keep the shim plate attached to the column during installation … . The welds were to be removed once the column was in place, at which time the plates would be permanently bolted into place. The evidence established that the accident occurred when the welds failed, inasmuch as the shim plate, which weighed between 200 and 400 pounds, was welded on only one side of the metal column … . Thus, the shim plate “fell because of the inadequacy of a safety device. . .[that was] put in place as to give proper protection for” plaintiff, entitling him to partial summary judgment … .

The motion court should have considered plaintiff’s reply argument that the one-sided tack welds were insufficient to safely secure the shim plate to the column because it was made in response to defendants’ opposition to the motion … . Keerdoja v Legacy Yards Tenant, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07537, First Dept 11-8-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE THE GOODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING PAYMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3016, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DISPUTE EACH ITEM, A GENERAL DENIAL WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract action should not have been granted. The criteria for a motion pursuant to CPLR 3016 (f) alleging the failure to pay for delivered goods were not met because the complaint did not sufficiently describe the goods and the prices. Therefore a general denial, as opposed to specific denials re: the items listed in the complaint, was sufficient. In addition defendant alleged the goods were not timely delivered, which is a valid defense that does not require specifically disputing each item described in the complaint:

In an action involving, inter alia, goods sold and delivered, CPLR 3016(f) permits a plaintiff to “set forth and number in his [or her] verified complaint the items of his [or her] claim and the reasonable value or agreed price of each.” “To meet the requirements of CPLR 3016(f), a complaint must contain a listing of the goods or services provided, with enough detail that it may readily be examined and its correctness tested entry by entry'” … . If the complaint meets these requirements, the defendant may not generally deny allegations of the complaint, but must, instead, specifically dispute the items on the plaintiff’s list … .

Here, the complaint failed to comply with CPLR 3016(f). The three invoices failed to state the price of each individual invoice item, or the date when each item was delivered. Although it was acknowledged that partial payment was made, the plaintiff did not specify what the partial payment was for. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant made a partial payment toward one invoice without specifying to which of the invoiced items the defendant’s payment was applied … .

In any event, even assuming  CPLR 3016(f) was complied with, a general denial is sufficient where a defense to the cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3016(f) speaks to the “entirety of the parties’ dealings” … . In this case, the defense—that the plaintiff breached the contract by untimely delivering the items in the contract—goes to the entirety of the parties’ dealings. Further, damages awarded on the counterclaim may offset liability for goods sold and delivered if the circumstances warrant it … . SSG Door & Hardware, Inc. v APS Contr., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07481, Second Dept 11-7-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE THE GOODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING PAYMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3016, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DISPUTE EACH ITEM, A GENERAL DENIAL WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE THE GOODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING PAYMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3016, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DISPUTE EACH ITEM, A GENERAL DENIAL WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (BREACH OF CONTRACT, CIVIL PROCEDURE, COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE THE GOODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING PAYMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3016, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DISPUTE EACH ITEM, A GENERAL DENIAL WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3016 (COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE THE GOODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING PAYMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3016, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DISPUTE EACH ITEM, A GENERAL DENIAL WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

COURT HAD DISCRETION TO ACCEPT A BELATED ORDER OF REFERENCE SUBMITTED AFTER THE 60-DAY DEADLINE IN 22 NYCRR 202.48 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO A DISCRETIONARY ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion to accept a belated order of reference in this foreclosure action. The court noted that the law of the case doctrine does not apply to a discretionary ruling:

In this action to foreclose a mortgage, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint. On appeal, this Court reversed that determination … . Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved, inter alia, for an order of reference. The Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the motion and directed the plaintiffs to submit an order of reference along with certain supporting documents. The plaintiffs failed to submit the order of reference and supporting documents to the court, allegedly because the documents were lost in the mail.

The plaintiffs made a second motion for an order of reference. The Supreme Court denied this motion without prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs abandoned their motion for an order of reference since they failed to submit the order of reference within 60 days after the signing and filing of the order directing submission, without showing good cause for their failure, in violation of 22 NYCRR 202.48(a). The plaintiffs then moved, inter alia, in effect, to extend the time to submit an order of reference, and for an order of reference. In the order appealed from, the court granted those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion, excusing the plaintiffs’ failure to submit some of the supporting documents the court had directed them to provide in its earlier order.

” It is within the sound discretion of the court to accept a belated order or judgment for settlement'” . “Moreover, a court should not deem an action or judgment abandoned where the result would not bring the repose to court proceedings that 22 NYCRR 202.48 was designed to effectuate, and would waste judicial resources'” … . Solomon v Burden, 2018 NY Slip Op 07480, Second Dept 11-7-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (BELATED ORDER OR JUDGMENT FOR SETTLEMENT, COURT HAS DISCRETION TO ACCEPT A BELATED ORDER OF REFERENCE SUBMITTED AFTER THE 60-DAY DEADLINE IN 22 NYCRR 202.48 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO A DISCRETIONARY ORDER (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (BELATED ORDER OR JUDGMENT FOR SETTLEMENT, COURT HAS DISCRETION TO ACCEPT A BELATED ORDER OF REFERENCE SUBMITTED AFTER THE 60-DAY DEADLINE IN 22 NYCRR 202.48 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO A DISCRETIONARY ORDER (SECOND DEPT))/22 NYCRR 202.48 (BELATED ORDER OR JUDGMENT FOR SETTLEMENT, COURT HAS DISCRETION TO ACCEPT A BELATED ORDER OF REFERENCE SUBMITTED AFTER THE 60-DAY DEADLINE IN 22 NYCRR 202.48 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO A DISCRETIONARY ORDER (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE (BELATED ORDER OR JUDGMENT FOR SETTLEMENT, COURT HAS DISCRETION TO ACCEPT A BELATED ORDER OF REFERENCE SUBMITTED AFTER THE 60-DAY DEADLINE IN 22 NYCRR 202.48 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO A DISCRETIONARY ORDER (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PETITIONER WAS A PARTY ALONG WITH DECEDENT IN SEVERAL ACTIONS WHICH RESULTED IN PENDING APPEALS, PETITIONER THEREFORE HAD STANDING TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that petitioner had standing to seek the appointment of an administrator of the estate of the decedent who was a party, along with petitioner, is several actions which resulted in appeals pending before the Second Department:

In this proceeding, the petitioner, the founder of Five Towns College, seeks the appointment of an administrator for the estate of John D. Quinn (hereinafter the decedent), a former member of the college’s board of trustees. Prior to the decedent’s death, the petitioner and decedent were parties in a number of actions that resulted in four appeals pending before this Court … . Those appeals were automatically stayed pending the substitution of a legal representative for the decedent pursuant to CPLR 1015(a).

The Surrogate’s Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner lacked standing to bring the petition. The petitioner, in effect, moved for leave to reargue the dismissal of the petition, and upon reargument, the court adhered to its original determination.

Upon reargument, the Surrogate’s Court should have found that the petitioner has standing to bring the petition. SCPA 1002(1) provides, in relevant part, that “a person interested in an action . . . in which the intestate . . . , if living, would be a proper party may present a petition to the court having jurisdiction praying for a decree granting letters of administration to him or to another person upon the estate of the intestate.” In this case, the decedent was named as a party in the actions in which appeals are pending before this Court, and the petitioner, as a defendant in those actions and an appellant before this Court, has an interest in those actions. Thus, pursuant to SCPA 1002(1), the petitioner has standing to petition the Surrogate’s Court for the appointment of an administrator for the decedent’s estate. Matter of Quinn, 2018 NY Slip Op 07433, Second Dept 11-7-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (PETITIONER WAS A PARTY ALONG WITH DECEDENT IN SEVERAL ACTIONS WHICH RESULTED IN PENDING APPEALS, PETITIONER THEREFORE HAD STANDING TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, PETITIONER WAS A PARTY ALONG WITH DECEDENT IN SEVERAL ACTIONS WHICH RESULTED IN PENDING APPEALS, PETITIONER THEREFORE HAD STANDING TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, CIVIL PROCEDURE, (PETITIONER WAS A PARTY ALONG WITH DECEDENT IN SEVERAL ACTIONS WHICH RESULTED IN PENDING APPEALS, PETITIONER THEREFORE HAD STANDING TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT (SPCA) (PETITIONER WAS A PARTY ALONG WITH DECEDENT IN SEVERAL ACTIONS WHICH RESULTED IN PENDING APPEALS, PETITIONER THEREFORE HAD STANDING TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1015 (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, PETITIONER WAS A PARTY ALONG WITH DECEDENT IN SEVERAL ACTIONS WHICH RESULTED IN PENDING APPEALS, PETITIONER THEREFORE HAD STANDING TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

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