You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to serve an amended notice of claim as a late notice of claim in this pedestrian accident case was properly denied. The original notice of claim alleged inadequate street lighting prevented the defendant driver from seeing the infant plaintiff. The amended notice of claim purported to add theories of liability and purported to add mother’s derivative claim. Mother’s claim could not be added because the infancy toll of the statute of limitations did not apply to her:

… [T]he plaintiffs failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a notice of claim that described the infant plaintiff’s injuries as arising from any negligence on the part of the Town other than that related to the nonfunctioning street lights, as described in the original notice of claim … . The plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate a causal nexus between the infancy of one of the plaintiffs and the delay … . Moreover, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that, within 90 days after the accident or a reasonable time thereafter, the Town acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim that it was negligent with respect to anything other than the street lights… . The plaintiffs also failed to establish that the Town would not be substantially prejudiced by the delay … .

The proposed amended notice of claim with respect to the mother’s derivative claim is time-barred because the statute of limitations expired before the plaintiffs moved to serve a late notice of claim, and the toll for infancy pursuant to CPLR 208 does not apply to a parent’s derivative cause of action … .

We also agree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to serve an amended notice of claim. A notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability … . The proposed amendments to the notice of claim added new theories of liability related to the Town’s ownership, operation, control, design, planning, study, retention, supervision, maintenance, repair, inspection, and management of the street and sidewalks on Swalm Street. Such amendments are not technical in nature and are not permitted as late-filed amendments to a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … . Palacios v Town of N. Hempstead, 2018 NY Slip Op 06927, Second Dept 10-17-18

NEGLIGENCE (MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM  (MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 208 (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this dental malpractice case. The doctrine may apply to one of the dentists (Gold) who retired by imputing to him the continued treatment by other dentists:

“Treatment” does not necessarily terminate upon the last visit, if further care or monitoring of the condition is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient, as manifested by a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future … . Thus, “[i]ncluded within the scope of continuous treatment’ is a timely return visit instigated by the patient to complain about and seek treatment for a matter related to the initial treatment'” … . Even the monitoring of an abnormal condition may be sufficient to support the application of the continuous treatment toll … . The critical inquiry is not whether the defendant failed to make a diagnosis or undertake a course of treatment during the period of limitation, but whether the plaintiff continued to seek treatment for the same or related conditions giving rise to his or her claim of malpractice, during that period… . Accordingly, a defendant cannot defeat the application of the continuous treatment doctrine merely because of a failure to make a correct diagnosis as to the underlying condition, if the defendant treated the plaintiff continuously over the relevant time period for symptoms that are ultimately traced to that condition … .

Here, the plaintiff does not claim merely that the moving defendant failed to diagnose her condition and treat her for it … . Rather, she alleged that between 2009 and 2015, she was treated continuously for symptoms ultimately traced to abnormal and severe periodontal disease. Both the plaintiff’s affidavit and her expert’s affidavit, which referred to numerous specific notations in the plaintiff’s dental records, raised triable issues of fact as to whether a course of treatment for periodontal disease was established and therefore the continuous treatment doctrine would apply to toll the statute of limitations … . Cohen v Gold, 2018 NY Slip Op 06878, Second Dept 10-17-18

NEGLIGENCE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))/DENTAL MALPRACTICE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the language of a mortgage loan purchase and warranties agreement (MLPWA) did not postpone the accrual of a breach of contract cause of action and, therefore, the statute of limitations had expired. This is another case arising out of the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities which were supported by allegedly defective mortgage loans that did not comply with the representations and warranties in the agreement:

… [P]laintiff did not dispute that the representations and warranties made by defendant in the MLPWA were effective as of the closing date. Instead, plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations had yet to lapse, relying upon a provision in the MLPWA that it refers to as the “accrual clause,” which states as follows: “Any cause of action against the Seller relating to or arising out of the breach of any representations and warranties made in Subsections 9.01 and 9.02 shall accrue as to any Mortgage Loan upon (i) discovery of such breach by the Purchaser or notice thereof by the Seller to the Purchaser, (ii) failure by the Seller to cure such breach, substitute a Qualified Substitute Mortgage Loan or repurchase such Mortgage Loan as specified above and (iii) demand upon the Seller by the Purchaser for compliance with this Agreement.” …

In New York, the default accrual rule for breach of contract causes of action is that the cause of action accrues when the contract is breached … . “[E]xcept in cases of fraud where the statute expressly provides otherwise, the statutory period of limitations begins to run from the time when liability for wrong has arisen even though the injured party may be ignorant of the existence of the wrong or injury”… . This Court has “repeatedly rejected accrual dates which cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty, in favor of a bright line approach,” and for that reason, we do not “apply the discovery rule to statutes of limitations in contract actions” … . “To extend the highly exceptional discovery notion to general breach of contract actions would effectively eviscerate the Statute of Limitations in this commercial dispute arena” … . * * *

… [General Obligations Law 17-103] requires an agreement to extend the statute of limitations to be made “after accrual of the cause of action,” and it allows extension of the limitations period only for, at most, the time period that would apply if the cause of action had accrued on the date of the agreement, i.e., six years from the date that the agreement was made if the limitations period is six years … . An agreement to extend the statute of limitations that does not comply with these requirements “has no effect” … . In addition, 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,” and “[n]o court shall extend the time limited by law for the commencement of an action.” Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Flagstar Capital Mkts., 2018 NY Slip Op 06851, CtApp 10-16-18

CONTRACT LAW (WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONTRACT LAW, WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))/SECURITIES  (WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (CONTRACT LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS CLAUSE IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT POSTPONE THE ACCRUAL OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (CT APP))

SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to vacate a default judgment should not have been granted on grounds that could have been raised in the first motion (which was denied). The court further held that the second motion should not have been deemed a motion to renew, for essentially the same reason:

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to vacate the judgment, since that branch was premised on grounds that were apparent at the time that the defendant made the prior motion to vacate, but had not been asserted in that prior motion … .

To the extent that the Supreme Court treated the defendant's second motion as one for leave to renew, the court should not have granted leave to renew and, upon renewal, granted that branch of the defendant's prior motion which was to vacate the judgment. Pursuant to CPLR 2221, a motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” … and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . “A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” … . The Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion … . Here, the defendant failed to proffer any justification for the failure to present the new facts on the original motion. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the new facts would have changed the prior determination … . A.G. Parker, Inc. v 246 Rochester Partners, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06711, Second Dept 10-10-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT))/VACATE DEFAULT, MOTION TO (SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT))/RENEW, MOTION TO  (SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2221 (SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT))

MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW, SIMILARLY THE MOTION VACATE THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to vacate the default judgment should have been granted as a matter of law (no showing of a meritorious defense was required) and the motion to vacate the note of issue and the certificate of readiness should have been granted as well:

“As a general rule, a defendant who seeks to vacate a default in appearing at a compliance conference is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense” … . Here, the defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the compliance conference on November 29, 2016, including the fact that he had been hospitalized from mid-September to late October 2016 for injuries sustained in a fall. In addition, notice of the conference was sent to the subject property and, although the defendant's grandson resided there, it was never the defendant's residence and the defendant denied any knowledge of the November 29, 2016, conference. The defendant also demonstrated that he did not receive notice of the adjourned conference date of January 24, 2017, and the record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that such notice was, in fact, given to him. Under such circumstances, the defendant's nonappearance for the conference on January 24, 2017, could not constitute a default, as there was no failure to perform a legal duty … . “This is analogous to the situation of a defendant who has not been served with process and suffers a default judgment. In both situations, the default' is a nullity along with the remedy the court renders in response” … . As the defendant's default in appearing at the conference on January 24, 2017, is considered a nullity, vacatur of that default ” is required as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious defense is required'” … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should have vacated the default and the notice of inquest as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious defense was required.

In addition, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness. Since the defendant moved for such relief more than 20 days after service of the note of issue and certificate of readiness, he had to show good cause for vacatur (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[e]). “To satisfy the requirement of good cause,' the party seeking vacatur must demonstrate that unusual or unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness requiring additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice'” … . Sposito v Cutting, 2018 NY Slip Op 06782, Second Dept 10-10-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW, SIMILARLY THE MOTION VACATE THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS  (MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW, SIMILARLY THE MOTION VACATE THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COMPLAINT STATED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT INSURANCE COVERAGE MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT DID NOT STATE A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE NONPARTY INSURER, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE INSURER WERE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the fraud cause of action against the property insurer which had disclaimed coverage should have been dismissed.  Plaintiff was injured on property owned by defendant Kirit and insured by nonparty Liberty Mutual Insurance. The fraud cause of action based upon alleged misrepresentations about the insurance coverage made to plaintiff by Kirit properly survived a motion to dismiss. But the fraud cause of action based upon alleged misrepresentations by Kirit to Liberty Mutual should have been dismissed:

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for fraud are “a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff and damages” … . Moreover, where a cause of action is based on fraud, “the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail” (CPLR 3016[b]… ).

Here, construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations to be true, and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences … , the complaint adequately stated a cause of action alleging fraud based upon the allegations that the defendants knowingly made misrepresentations to the plaintiff regarding insurance coverage for the renovation project. The complaint stated the misrepresentations with sufficient particularity to clearly inform the defendants of the incidents complained of … . However, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action based upon alleged misrepresentations the defendants made to Liberty Mutual, as the plaintiff failed to adequately allege that the misrepresentations were made for the purpose of being communicated to the plaintiff in order to induce his reliance thereon or that these misrepresentations were relayed to the plaintiff, who then relied upon them … . Robles v Patel, 2018 NY Slip Op 06779, Second Dept 10-10-18

FRAUD (COMPLAINT STATED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT INSURANCE COVERAGE MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT DID NOT STATE A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE NONPARTY INSURER, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE INSURER WERE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (FRAUD, COMPLAINT STATED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT INSURANCE COVERAGE MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT DID NOT STATE A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE NONPARTY INSURER, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE INSURER WERE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRAUD, COMPLAINT STATED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT INSURANCE COVERAGE MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT DID NOT STATE A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE NONPARTY INSURER, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE INSURER WERE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3016 (FRAUD, COMPLAINT STATED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT INSURANCE COVERAGE MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT DID NOT STATE A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY DEFENDANT TO THE NONPARTY INSURER, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE INSURER WERE TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

INSURANCE AGENCY ALLEGED FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE INSURED WHICH RESULTED IN A LOWER PREMIUM, THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for fraud and should not have been dismissed. The plaintiff, an insurance agency, alleged the defendant insured (Aminov) misrepresented its gross income, and therefore paid a lower premium:

“The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for fraud are (1) a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false, (2) knowledge of its falsity, (3) an intent to induce reliance, (4) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and (5) damages” … . “In actions for fraud, corporate officers and directors may be held individually liable if they participated in or had knowledge of the fraud, even if they did not stand to gain personally” … .

In addition to alleging all of the elements of a fraud cause of action, CPLR 3016(b) provides that “the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail.” The purpose of this heightened pleading requirement “is to inform a defendant with respect to the incidents complained of” and “should not be confused with unassailable proof of fraud” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court's conclusion, the complaint, as amplified by the plaintiff's submission in opposition to the motion, alleged all of the elements constituting fraud, and further stated “the basic facts to establish [those] elements,” as required by CPLR 3016(b) … . In particular, the plaintiff alleged a specific misrepresentation, intentionally made by Aminov … , in the context of applying for a policy of insurance from the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff relied upon that misrepresentation to its detriment, as it consequently charged and collected a lower premium than it otherwise would have for the instant insurance policy. Assuming the facts alleged to be true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, these allegations set forth a cognizable cause of action alleging fraud, and stated in sufficient detail the facts constituting the wrong … . Moreover, the fraud cause of action is not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action, as it does not relate to a failure to perform under the insurance policy, but, rather, to an alleged misrepresentation made in applying for the policy … . Minico Ins. Agency, LLC v B&M Cleanup Servs., 2018 NY Slip Op 06729, Second Dept 10-10-18

FRAUD (INSURANCE AGENCY ALLEGED FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE INSURED WHICH RESULTED IN A LOWER PREMIUM, THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRAUD, INSURANCE AGENCY ALLEGED FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE INSURED WHICH RESULTED IN A LOWER PREMIUM, THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (FRAUD, (INSURANCE AGENCY ALLEGED FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE INSURED WHICH RESULTED IN A LOWER PREMIUM, THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant's (Expendables') opposition to a  motion for leave to enter and default judgment, alleging law office failure as the reason for failing to appear, was properly rejected:

In support of the proffered excuse of law office failure, the attorney for Expendables merely submitted an affirmation in which it was alleged that the corporate defendant had been “mistakenly omitted” from the answer served by one of the individual defendants. No factual detail or affidavit of personal knowledge was submitted explaining the drafting of the answer, the manner in which the purported omission occurred, or the failure to discover it until the plaintiffs moved for leave to enter a default judgment. Moreover, the answer served by the individual defendant bore no indicia that it was intended to serve as a joint answer for that defendant and Expendables. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the conclusory and unsubstantiated assertion of counsel failed to constitute a reasonable excuse for the default of Expendables in answering the complaint, and in granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a default judgment against that defendant … . Lefcort v Samowitz, 2018 NY Slip Op 06727, Second Dept 10-10-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (DEFAULT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the complaint (supplemented with affidavits) stated causes of action for conversion and tortious interference with contract which should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff, a dog trainer, purchased a dog and allegedly entered a contract with the seller of the dog (America' Best) to train the dog. Plaintiff and defendant were in a relationship at the time they agreed to purchase the dog. The complaint alleged that defendant took possession of the dog:

Two key elements of conversion are the plaintiff's (1) legal ownership or an immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing, and (2) the defendant's unauthorized dominion over the thing in question or interference with it, to the exclusion of the plaintiff's right… . Here, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the complaint sufficiently alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of the dog, that the defendant has unauthorized possession of the dog, and that the defendant has refused to return the dog.

… The elements of tortious interference with a contract are: “(1) the existence of a contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant's knowledge of the contract; (3) defendant's intentional inducement of the third party to breach or otherwise render performance impossible; and (4) damages to plaintiff” … . The complaint, as supplemented by the plaintiff's affidavits, sufficiently alleges the elements of a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with a contract, including that the defendant's intentional interference with the America's Best contract rendered performance impossible … . Nero v Fiore, 2018 NY Slip Op 06755, Second Dept 10-10-18

CONVERSION (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE BRINGING A COURT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was required to exhaust its administrative remedies by appealing the town building department's ruling to the zoning board of appeals before bringing a court action. Petitioner's request for a permit to put in a convenience store in a rural use district had been denied by the building department:

… [T]he petitioner was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before commencing the instant proceeding/action. The petitioner's constitutional challenges to the Building Department's determination did not excuse the petitioner's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies through an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals… . Furthermore, the petitioner did not establish that the Building Department's determination was “wholly beyond its grant of power” or that the pursuit of administrative remedies would cause the petitioner irreparable injury … . Matter of Vineland Commons, LLC v Building Dept. of Town of Riverhead, 2018 NY Slip Op 06748, Second Dept 10-10-18

ZONING (PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE BRINGING A COURT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ZONING, PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE BRINGING A COURT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ZONING, CIVIL PROCEDURE (ZONING, PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT BY THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BEFORE BRINGING A COURT ACTION (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