You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment and an order of reference should have been granted. By not raising lack of standing as a defense in the answer, the defense was waived. Supreme Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, deny plaintiff’s motion on that ground:

… [U]nder this Court’s well-established precedent, as articulated in Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo (42 AD3d 239), the defense of lack of standing is waived if not raised by the defendant in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss. Accordingly, by failing to answer the complaint or to make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, the defendants waived the defense of lack of standing … . Under the circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings before a different Justice. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Halberstam, 2018 NY Slip Op 07485, Second Dept 11-7-18

FORECLOSURE (THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL, FORECLOSURE, THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a comprehensive decision, over a comprehensive dissent, determined that the general contractor, Ultimate, was not liable under Labor Law 200 for plaintiff’s fall through an opening in planks and plywood covering a stairwell opening because the accident was attributable to the manner of the work and Ultimate did not exercise any supervisory control over the installation of drywall by the plaintiff. The dissent argued that there was a question of fact whether the opening in the stairwell covering was a dangerous condition of which Ultimate had notice, which is also a ground for liability under Labor Law 200. The Second Department noted that the court should not have sua sponte dismissed Ultimate’s cross claims against the drywall company (Fortin) because such relief was not requested. The Second Department further noted that Fortin was not entitled to protection from plaintiff’s suit under the Workers’ Compensation Law on the ground that plaintiff was Fortin’s employee because Fortin did not maintain a Workers’ Compensation policy:

“Labor Law § 200(1) is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or general contractor to provide workers with a safe place to work”… . “Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed” … . Where “a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers arising from a subcontractor’s methods or materials, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had unless it is shown that the party to be charged exercised some supervisory control over the operation” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . “[M]ere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” … . …

… Ultimate established, … that the accident arose from the method and manner in which the plaintiff and Jean-Guy Fortin covered the stairwell opening … . …

The Supreme Court should not have, in effect, sua sponte, directed dismissal of Ultimate’s cross claims against Fortin for common-law indemnification and contribution, which relief Fortin did not request in its motion papers… . Moreover, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Ultimate’s motion which was for summary judgment on its cross claim against Fortin for common-law indemnification. Contrary to Fortin’s contention, Ultimate’s cross claims are not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. … Ultimate established that Fortin did not procure workers’ compensation on behalf of the plaintiff … . Therefore, Fortin is not entitled to the benefit of the workers’ compensation bar. Poulin v Ultimate Homes, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07468, Second Dept 11-7-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT)

THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT), ​

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined that the phrase “within five days” in a change of venue statute (CPLR 511) did not impose a five day waiting period:

Asserting that Ulster County was an improper venue for the proceeding, the Steeles served a timely written demand that the proceeding be tried in Oswego County (see CPLR 511 [b]). Four days later, the Steeles moved, in Ulster County, to change venue of the proceeding to Oswego County. The Aarons argue that the Steeles, by failing to wait five days after their demand to allow the Aarons an opportunity to provide a written consent to change venue, failed to comply with the statutory procedure and thereby were not entitled to a change of venue as of right. This argument is based on an interpretation that the language “unless within five days” places a hold on the defendant’s obligation to make a motion, during which time the defendant must simply wait for the plaintiff to respond to the demand (CPLR 511 [b]). We disagree with that interpretation of the statute.

The Aarons’ argument appears to focus exclusively on the phrase “unless within five days.” However, a plaintiff can choose not to respond to the demand, so the defendant may be sitting and waiting for nothing. In our view, the five-day window is a time limit on the plaintiff only, and the defendant is not required to refrain from doing anything during that period. Instead, the limits placed on a defendant under CPLR 511 (b) — other than the 15-day limit to move for change of venue — are contingent on whatever response the plaintiff may provide, rather than a five-day time period. While the five days are a limit on the plaintiff’s ability to respond to the demand, the defendant retains the ability to make the venue motion “unless . . . [the] plaintiff serves a written consent” agreeing to the venue selected by the defendant (CPLR 511 [b]). In other words, the important occurrence for the defendant is the plaintiff granting consent, not the passage of days. If the plaintiff consents to the demanded change in venue, the defendant may not move for such relief. In a situation where the defendant made a motion before the end of the plaintiff’s five-day response window and the plaintiff thereafter consented, the defendant would have to withdraw the motion (which would be unnecessary at that point anyway). Matter of Aaron v Steele, 2018 NY Slip Op 07393, Third Dept 11-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (VENUE, THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 511 (VENUE, THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))/VENUE (THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant general contractor’s motion to dismiss the complaint brought by plaintiff subcontractor, based upon the subcontractor’s failure to allege it was licensed to do home improvement work, should have been granted:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3015(e), a complaint that seeks to recover damages for breach of a home improvement contract or to recover in quantum meruit for home improvement services is subject to dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) if it does not allege compliance with the licensing requirement” … . Moreover, a home improvement contractor who fails to possess and plead possession of a valid license as required by relevant laws may not commence an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien … .

Here, the complaint did not allege that the plaintiff was duly licensed in the Town of East Hampton at the time the services were rendered … . Moreover, in opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff did not dispute that it did not possess the necessary license. The plaintiff’s contention that the work it performed was not for home improvement but, rather, was for the construction of a new home for which a home improvement contracting license was not necessary, is without merit. The Town Code defines “home improvement” as including, inter alia, “[n]ew home construction” … . Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants are entitled to the protection of CPLR 3015(e) and the applicable licensing requirements … . Kristeel, Inc. v Seaview Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07296, Second Dept 10-31-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3015 (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS (PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LIEN LAW (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MECHANIC’S LIENS (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (LICENSES, HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LICENSES  (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department determined a stipulation of settlement entered by plaintiff’s attorney was a binding contract. The fact that plaintiff changed her mind before the stipulation was filed was of no consequence. Plaintiff made no effort to demonstrate the contract was invalid due to duress, fraud, mistake or overreaching:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance. CPLR 2104 provides that, “[a]n agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered.” Here, there is no dispute that on October 30, 2015, the plaintiff’s former counsel had actual authority from his client to enter into the stipulation discontinuing the action on her behalf … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the stipulation of discontinuance clearly evidenced the plaintiff’s intent to discontinue the action as of October 30, 2015, notwithstanding that she changed her mind prior to the filing of the stipulation on November 2, 2015 … , even though it did not effect a discontinuance until it was filed with the clerk of the court on November 2, 2015 (CPLR 3217[a][2]). In seeking to vacate the stipulation, the plaintiff failed to meet her burden to establish good cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as that the stipulation was the result of duress, fraud, mistake, or overreaching, or that the terms of the stipulation were unconscionable … . Demetriou v Wolfer, 2018 NY Slip Op 07288, Second Dept 10-31-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/DISCONTINUANCE (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2103, CPLR 3217 (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT)

MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the denial of a cross motion as untimely was improper because plaintiff did not mail the motion papers 21 days before the return date:

The plaintiff served its motion by regular mail on March 17, 2016, with a return date of April 6, 2016. In order to make effective its demand for seven days’ notice of answering papers or a cross motion (see CPLR 2214[b]; CPLR 2215), the plaintiff was required to have mailed its motion papers at least 21 days prior to the return date (seeCPLR 2103[b][2]; CPLR 2214[b]… ). The plaintiff mailed its motion papers only 20 days before the return date. Thus, the cross motion, which was served six days before the return date, was timely (see CPLR 2215). Zisholtz & Zisholtz, LLP v Mandel, 2018 NY Slip Op 07349, Second Dept 10-31-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CROSS MOTIONS (MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2013, 2014, 2015 (MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kern, over a dissenting opinion, determined that the arbitrator-panel (JAMS) did not have the power to reconsider its initial finding (called a partial final award or PFA) that the $10 million settlement paid by Allied was not a “loss” within the meaning of the insurance policy issued to Allied by AISLIC. The parties had agreed to first decide whether the settlement constituted a “loss” and then determine the applicable costs stemming from the insured’s defense of the claim against it.  The First Department held that the arbitrator-panel did not have the authority to reconsider the initial PFA and reverse itself (finding that the settlement did actually constitute a “loss”) in the course of considering the defense and indemnification issues:

Here, when the panel reconsidered the PFA, it exceeded its authority based on the common law doctrine of functus officio. The doctrine of functus officio provides that absent an agreement to the contrary, after an arbitrator renders a final award, the arbitrator may not entertain an application to change the award, “except … to correct a deficiency of form or a miscalculation of figures or to eliminate matter not submitted”(…CPLR 7509; CPLR 7511[c]). “In order to be final,’ an arbitration award must be intended by the arbitrators to be their complete determination of all claims submitted to them” … . “Generally, in order for a claim to be completely determined, the arbitrators must have decided not only the issue of liability of a party on the claim, but also the issue of damages” … .

However, “the submission by the parties determines the scope of the arbitrators’ authority” … . Thus, “if the parties agree that the [arbitration] panel is to make a final decision as to part of the dispute, the arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to do so . . . [and] once [the] arbitrators have finally decided the submitted issues, they are, in common-law parlance, functus officio,’ meaning that their authority over those questions is ended” … . American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v Allied Capital Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07194, First Dept 10-25-18

ARBITRATION (THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (ARBITRATION, THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARBITRATION, THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT))/FUNCTUS OFFICIO (ARBITRATION, THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT))

,

COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that Supreme Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, vacate its prior decision and order and reinstate a 2014 judgment. The motion papers did not request any relief that could be the basis of the court’s action:

“[A] trial court has no revisory or appellate jurisdiction, sua sponte, to vacate its own order or judgment” … . Although “a court may grant relief[] pursuant to a general prayer contained in the notice of motion . . . ” … , no such clause was contained in plaintiff’s notice of motion. In the absence of any cross motion from the defendants, or any other kind of request for vacatur of the court’s prior order decision and prior order and reinstatement of the prior judgment, the court erred in doing so on its own initiative. Howell v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07178, First Dept 10-25-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT))/JUDGES (COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

IN THIS CLASS ACTION AGAINST NATIONAL GRID AND LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) STEMMING FROM THE LOSS OF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE PUBLIC IS SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN NATIONAL GRID AND LIPA, FILING A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND APPEALING THE RULING ON IT DID NOT WAIVE ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a class action stemming from the loss of power during Hurricane Sandy, determined: (1) the public was a third-party beneficiary of a contract between National Grid and the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA); (2) the public was subject to the arbitration clause in the contract; and (3) filing a pre-answer motion dismiss did not act as a waiver of arbitration:

… [U]nder limited circumstances nonsignatories may be compelled to arbitrate” … . “Under the direct benefits theory of estoppel, a nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate where the nonsignatory knowingly exploits’ the benefits of an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and receives benefits flowing directly from the agreement” … . “The benefits must be direct, and the party seeking to compel arbitration must demonstrate that the party seeking to avoid arbitration relies on the terms of the agreement containing the arbitration provision in pursuing its claim” … . …

National Grid … demonstrated that the plaintiffs derived a direct benefit from the [contract] and that the plaintiffs are explicitly relying upon the terms of that agreement to support their claims against National Grid. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the plaintiffs should be compelled to arbitrate in accordance with the arbitration clause … . …

… [T]the service of a pre-answer motion to dismiss does not constitute waiver of the right to arbitrate, since “a defendant is entitled to have the sufficiency of a complaint tested before a duty to seek arbitration arises” … . Similarly, an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss does not result in waiver of the right to arbitrate … . Matter of Long Is. Power Auth. Hurricane Sandy Litig., 2018 NY Slip Op 07127, Second Dept 10-24-18

ARBITRATION (IN THIS CLASS ACTION AGAINST NATIONAL GRID AND LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) STEMMING FROM THE LOSS OF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE PUBLIC IS SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN NATIONAL GRID AND LIPA, FILING A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND APPEALING THE RULING ON IT DID NOT WAIVE ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION, IN THIS CLASS ACTION AGAINST NATIONAL GRID AND LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) STEMMING FROM THE LOSS OF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE PUBLIC IS SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN NATIONAL GRID AND LIPA, FILING A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND APPEALING THE RULING ON IT DID NOT WAIVE ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARBITRATION, IN THIS CLASS ACTION AGAINST NATIONAL GRID AND LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) STEMMING FROM THE LOSS OF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE PUBLIC IS SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN NATIONAL GRID AND LIPA, FILING A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND APPEALING THE RULING ON IT DID NOT WAIVE ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT))/UTILITIES (IN THIS CLASS ACTION AGAINST NATIONAL GRID AND LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (LIPA) STEMMING FROM THE LOSS OF POWER DURING HURRICANE SANDY, THE PUBLIC IS SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN NATIONAL GRID AND LIPA, FILING A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS AND APPEALING THE RULING ON IT DID NOT WAIVE ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS A NULLITY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AND NO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATES HAD BEEN APPOINTED OR NAMED PURSUANT TO THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT OR THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined the county’s attempt to foreclose on tax liens was a nullity because the property owners had died and no representative of the estate had been appointed under the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA) or the CPLR. The dissent argued that an in rem proceeding was appropriate:

“[I]t is well established that the dead cannot be sued” … . Accordingly, “[a] party may not commence a legal action or proceeding against a dead person, but must instead name the personal representative of the decedent’s estate” … . …

Although the passage of time is no bar to the County’s enforcement of tax liens (see RPTL 1160), as a general matter, “[t]he remedy for a [party] who faces the running of the Statute of Limitations under these circumstances is to petition the Surrogate’s Court pursuant to SCPA 1002 for the appointment of . . . [a] personal representative of the estate” … . The Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act provides that, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, letters of administration may be granted to “persons who are distributees of an intestate”… , or to certain other individuals including “the public administrator, . . . the chief fiscal officer of the county, . . . the petitioner, in the discretion of the court, or . . . any other person or persons” … .

Similarly, if the death of a party occurs after the commencement of a proceeding or action “and the claim for or against him [or her] is not thereby extinguished[,] the court shall order substitution of the proper parties” (CPLR 1015[a]). “A motion for substitution may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party” (CPLR 1021 …). …

Our dissenting colleague contends, without citation to any positive authority, that in rem proceedings may be properly commenced and maintained against individuals who are known to be deceased so long as the County has provided those deceased individuals with notice of the proceeding in accordance with statutory law. We are unaware of any purpose such notice would serve to the deceased individuals, and unaware of “any method for serving with process those who have moved beyond the vale” … . Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens v Goldman, 2018 NY Slip Op 07123, Second Dept 10-24-18

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW TAX (FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS A NULLITY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AND NO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATES HAD BEEN APPOINTED OR NAMED PURSUANT TO THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT OR THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT))/TAX LIENS (FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS A NULLITY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AND NO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATES HAD BEEN APPOINTED OR NAMED PURSUANT TO THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT OR THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT)/FORECLOSURE (TAX LIENS, FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS A NULLITY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AND NO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATES HAD BEEN APPOINTED OR NAMED PURSUANT TO THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT OR THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT)).TRUSTS AND ESTATES (TAX LIENS, FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS A NULLITY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AND NO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATES HAD BEEN APPOINTED OR NAMED PURSUANT TO THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT OR THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS A NULLITY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AND NO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATES HAD BEEN APPOINTED OR NAMED PURSUANT TO THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT OR THE CPLR (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