You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAIVED ANY SUBSEQUENT OBJECTION TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court on a ground not raised below, determined that defendant’s attorney’s notice of appearance waived any objection to personal jurisdiction over defendant:

“The filing of a notice of appearance in an action by a party’s counsel serves as a waiver of any objection to personal jurisdiction in the absence of either the service of an answer which raises a jurisdictional objection, or a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction” … . Here, in November 2014, the defendant’s attorney appeared in the action on her behalf by filing a notice of appearance dated October 31, 2014, and did not move to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction at that time, or assert lack of personal jurisdiction in a responsive pleading… . The defendant did not move to dismiss the complaint until September 2015, 10 months after filing a notice of appearance. Under those circumstances, the defendant waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over her in this action … .

Although the plaintiff raises this issue for the first time on appeal, it involves a question of law that appears on the face of the record, and could not have been avoided if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Vu, 2018 NY Slip Op 08629, Second Dept 12-19-18

 

,

CROSS-MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE HAD BEEN VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED INITIALLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the judgment of foreclosure should have been vacated because defendant was not served and therefore the court did not acquire personal jurisdiction. However, plaintiff’s timely cross-motion to extend the time for service pursuant to CPLR 306-b was properly granted:

“If service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in [CPLR 306-b], the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service” … . Good cause requires the plaintiff to demonstrate, as a threshold matter, “reasonably diligent efforts” in attempting to effect service … . In deciding whether, in the interest of justice, to grant an extension of time to serve a summons and complaint, “the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the [potentially] meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … . “A determination of whether to grant the extension in the interest of justice is generally within the discretion of the motion court” … . Bank United, FSB v Verbitsky, 2018 NY Slip Op 08623, Second Dept 12-19-18

 

, ,

THE PETITION SEEKING LEAVE TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE NOTICE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ACTION WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this pedestrian accident action seeking coverage by the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) should not have been dismissed without a hearing:

A petitioner seeking leave of court to commence an action against the MVAIC has the initial burden of demonstrating that he or she is a “[q]ualified person” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5202 and by making an evidentiary showing that he or she has satisfied certain other statutory requirements … . In a special proceeding, to the extent that no triable issues of fact are raised, the court is empowered to make a summary determination (see CPLR 409[b]). If, however, triable issues of fact are raised, an evidentiary hearing must be held (see CPLR 410).

Here, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the petitioner is an uninsured resident of New York, and, therefore, a “[q]ualified person” pursuant to article 52 of the Insurance Law (Insurance Law § 5202[b]); whether the accident, which the petitioner admitted that he did not report to the police within 24 hours as required by Insurance Law § 5208(a)(2)(A), was, nonetheless, reported to the police “as soon as was reasonably possible” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5208(a)(2)(B); and whether the petitioner served a notice of claim upon the MVAIC within 90 days of the accident (see Insurance Law § 5208[a][2][A]), which issues could not have been resolved without an evidentiary hearing … . Matter of Laszlone v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08657, Second Dept 12-19-18

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

, , ,

INSURER WAIVED THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONER WAS A PASSENGER IN THE CAR BY NOT SEEKING A STAY OF ARBITRATION, THEREFORE THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY FINDING PETITIONER WAS NOT A PASSENGER AT THE TIME OF THE HIT AND RUN ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer (GEICO) had waived the contractual issue whether petitioner was a “qualified person” entitled to uninsured motorist benefits in this hit and run accident by not moving to stay arbitration. Therefore the arbitrator exceeded his powers in finding petitioner was not a “qualified person” because he was not a passenger in the car at the time of the accident. The matter was remitted to be heard by another arbitrator to determine whether petitioner suffered “serious injury:”

…[T]he issue presented to the arbitrator was whether the claimants, the petitioner and his girlfriend, sustained serious injuries as a result of the negligence of the operator of the hit-and-run vehicle, and if so, the reasonable compensatory value thereof. With a hit-and-run cause of action, in order to proceed to arbitration, there must be “physical contact” by a hit-and-run vehicle to a “qualified person” (Insurance Law § 5217). Accordingly, the determination of whether the petitioner is a “qualified person” pursuant to the policy is a condition precedent to arbitration and therefore is a basis for an application to stay arbitration to be determined by the courts … . Here, since GEICO never moved to stay the arbitration, it waived the ability to litigate this issue and essentially conceded that the petitioner was a covered person under the policy … . Matter of Banegas v GEICO Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 08644, Second Dept 12-19-18

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER REQUESTED INVOICES IN DISCOVERY WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS, BUT PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE ABOUT THE INVOICES AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that requested invoices which were alleged not to exist could not be the subject of evidence at trial:

Durante’s affidavit demonstrated that the requested invoices of Croton could not be located and that the invoices of Iron Age were not in the respondents’ possession or control … . Under the circumstances of this case, there was no clear showing that the respondents’ failure to produce the invoices was willful and contumacious, since, inter alia, the respondents complied, albeit tardily, with the appellants’ discovery demands and demonstrated that the invoices requested could not be located, or were not in their possession or control (see CPLR 3101[d][2] … ). Nevertheless, the respondents should have been precluded from later offering evidence regarding the requested invoices of Croton that were not produced … . Accordingly, that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to preclude the respondents from introducing at trial evidence of the requested invoices of Croton that were not provided should have been granted. Cap Rents Supply, LLC v Durante, 2018 NY Slip Op 08458, Second Dept 12-12-18

SPOLIATION

,

BY ENTERING A STIPULATION SETTLING A FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT WAIVED ANY DEFECT IN SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT, THE STIPULATION WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT OCCUR IN COURT, EMAILS AND PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT AMOUNT MEMORIALIZED THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that defendant Campbell had waived any defect in service of process by entering into a stipulation of settlement in this foreclosure action. The court held that the stipulation settling the deficiency judgment, which did not occur in court, was memorialized by emails and the payment of an agreed settlement amount. The dissent argued there was insufficient evidence of a stipulation entered into by Campbell and therefore Campbell’s motion to vacate the default judgment on the ground she was never served with the complaint should have been granted:

… [I]n vacating the settlement of the deficiency judgment “in the interests of justice,” the Supreme Court incorrectly determined that Campbell was not represented by counsel. In fact, Campbell was represented by counsel when she settled and made payment on the deficiency judgment. As part of the settlement, the plaintiff agreed not to proceed in other pending foreclosure actions against Campbell. Additionally, Campbell retained the same attorney with respect to other actions arising out of the settlement. By settling the deficiency judgment, Campbell clearly submitted to the court’s jurisdiction and acknowledged the validity of the judgment… . Therefore, we disagree with the court’s determination granting Campbell’s motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, the subsequent foreclosure sale, the order of reference, the referee’s deed, and the settlement of the deficiency judgment, the terms of which had been fully performed.

Contrary to the position of our dissenting colleague, a formal stipulation of settlement need not be contained in the record. Here, the terms of the settlement were contained in contemporaneous emails between the plaintiff’s attorney and Campbell’s attorney, and by a check in the amount on which they had agreed. Campbell does not deny that she paid the amount for which she agreed to settle the deficiency judgment. That fully performed settlement two years before Campbell moved to vacate her default effectively waived her defense that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over her … . Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v Campbell, 2018 NY Slip Op 08465, Second Dept 12-12-18

CPLR 2104

, , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVERSE POSSESSION ACTION AND THE LACHES DEFENSE, THE ACTION INVOLVED LAND THAT WAS ONCE UNDER WATER CREATED BY THE MOVEMENT OF SAND DURING STORMS DECADES AGO (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact in this adverse possession case concerning who owned the land and when the adverse possession began. The land in question was once under water and was created by the movement of sand decades ago:

CPLR 212(a) provides that “[a]n action to recover real property or its possession cannot be commenced unless the plaintiff, or his [or her] predecessor in interest, was seized or possessed of the premises within ten years before the commencement of the action.” However, the 10-year limitations period does not begin to run against a record owner of property until the occupiers of the property begin to adversely possess it (see RPAPL 311…).

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint … on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. Calculation of the date from which the statute of limitations began to run on the plaintiffs’ causes of action requires a threshold determination as to whether the plaintiffs are the record owners of the disputed land, and secondly, whether, and if so, when, the defendants began to adversely possess the land… . The defendants failed to conclusively establish that the plaintiffs are not the record owners of the disputed land for the purposes of determining a date upon which the statute of limitations began to run … . …

The defendants also failed to establish … that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their laches defense. “The essence of the equitable defense of laches is prejudicial delay in the assertion of rights” … . “In order for laches to apply to the failure of an owner of real property to assert his or her interest, it must be shown that [the] plaintiff inexcusably failed to act when [he or] she knew, or should have known, that there was a problem with [his or] her title to the property. In other words, for there to be laches, there must be present elements to create an equitable estoppel'” … .

Here, although the defendants established that the plaintiffs did not commence the action until a lengthy period of time after the alleged avulsive acts had occurred, the defendants failed to eliminate issues of fact as to whether the plaintiffs’ failure to act was excusable, whether the defendants were taking actions to adversely possess the disputed land, and whether and when the plaintiffs should reasonably have become aware of such alleged acts. Strough v Incorporated Vil. of W. Hampton Dunes, 2018 NY Slip Op 08525, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

, , , ,

THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CAN BE REBUTTED BY PROOF OF DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE INSURER’S FILE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that evidence that defendant exercised dominion of control of the vehicle would rebut the presumption of ownership created by a certificate of title. Here the tile was in defendant’s wife’s name and she was driving at the time of the traffic accident. Plaintiff sought to discover the insurer’s file pursuant to CPLR 3124. Supreme Court should have granted the motion:

“A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of ownership” (… Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 128, 2101[g]; 2108[c]…) . However, this presumption may be rebutted by evidence demonstrating that another individual owns the subject vehicle… . This may include evidence that a person other than the title holder exercised “dominion and control” over the vehicle …  .

Here, documents from the insurer concerning the vehicle and the accident are material and relevant to the issue of whether the defendant exercised dominion and control over the vehicle … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to provide an executed authorization for documents in the insurer’s possession concerning the vehicle and the accident … . ​Portillo v Carlson, 2018 NY Slip Op 08520, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE JUSTIFIED CONSIDERING EVIDENCE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY GRANTED, HOWEVER DELAYS IN DISCOVERY WARRANTED SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined law office failure was an adequate excuse for failing to present evidence in support of plaintiff’s original motion which was submitted in support of a motion to renew. However, in light of plaintiff’s delays in discovery, sanctions were appropriate:

… Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the new evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of those branches of her motion which were for leave to renew her prior motion and her opposition to the appellants’ cross motion. Although the new facts may have been known to the plaintiff at the time of her prior motion, the plaintiff explained that the new evidence was not submitted in connection with her prior motion and opposition due to a misunderstanding by counsel that ultimately led to law office failure. * * *

“The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court’s discretion” … . “Whether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” … . “[T]he court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005) where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue” … . …

… [A]though the plaintiff set forth a reasonable explanation for her failure to fully comply with the conditional order of dismissal, the fact remains that she failed to fully comply with that order, and her conduct during discovery cannot be countenanced … . Consequently, … a monetary sanction in the total sum of $5,000 is warranted to compensate the appellants for the time expended and costs incurred in connection with the plaintiff’s failure to fully and timely comply with the conditional order of dismissal … . Burro v Kang, 2018 NY Slip Op 08457, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

, , ,

FOUR MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING BOARD THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS NECESSARY, PETITION TO ANNUL THAT DECISION WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the four-month statute of limitations applied to the planning board’s decision that an environmental impact statement was not necessary and the petition to annul that decision was untimely:

To the extent that the petition alleges the Planning Board’s noncompliance with SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act], the four-month statute of limitations applies (see CPLR 217[1]…). An action taken by an agency pursuant to SEQRA may be challenged only when such action is final (see CPLR 7801[1]). An agency action is final when the decision-maker arrives at a ” definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury'” … . The position taken by an agency is not definitive and the injury is not actual or concrete if the injury purportedly inflicted by the agency could be prevented, significantly ameliorated, or rendered moot by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party … . Here, the statute of limitations began to run with the issuance of the negative declaration for the project on February 19, 2015, as this constituted the Planning Board’s final act under SEQRA and, accordingly, any challenge to the negative declaration had to be commenced within four months of that date … . Matter of Stengel v Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Bd., 2018 NY Slip Op 08488, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

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