You are here: / Civil Procedure

MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 AND 5015 PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 317 and 5015(a) was properly denied because the defendant did not demonstrate it was not personally served with the summons and complaint. The court explained the criteria under each statute:

CPLR 317 provides that a person served with a summons, other than by personal delivery to him or her, who does not appear, may be allowed to defend the action within one year after he or she obtains knowledge of entry of the judgment upon a finding of the court that he or she did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a potentially meritorious defense … . However, the “mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint is not sufficient to establish lack of actual notice of the action in time to defend for the purpose of CPLR 317” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish that it did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend the action. The affidavit of the defendant's “representative,” who appears to be its attorney, stated that the complaint was not delivered “personally” to the defendant, but rather, “to an inaccurate address through the Secretary of State,” which address had not been valid “for several years.” This representative's affidavit does not appear to be based on personal knowledge. Furthermore, there is no allegation contained in this affidavit that the defendant, in fact, never received the summons and complaint, nor is there any detail as to where the defendant moved to and when, nor whether the defendant made any efforts to update its address on file with the Secretary of State. Under these circumstances, the defendant did not demonstrate lack of actual notice of the action … .

In contrast to a motion pursuant to CPLR 317, on a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the movant is required to establish a reasonable excuse for his or her default. In general, a defendant's failure to keep a current address on file with the Secretary of State does not constitute a reasonable excuse … . However, there is no per se rule that a corporation served through the Secretary of State, and which failed to update its address on file there, cannot demonstrate an “excusable default.” Rather, a court should consider, among other factors, the length of time for which the address had not been kept current … . Here, no evidence was presented as to how long the address was not updated. Accordingly, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default. Dwyer Agency of Mahopac, LLC v Dring Holding Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06001, Second Dept 9-12-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 AND 5015 PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 317 (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 AND 5015 PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015(a) (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 AND 5015 PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE (MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 AND 5015 PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD TO AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY UMBRELLA INSURER OF THE CLAIM WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have searched the record to award summary judgment on a ground not raised by the parties in this car accident case. However, the Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the umbrella insurer (RLI) on the ground that the owner of the leased car (CFC) did not timely notify RLI of the claim:

The Supreme Court erred in essentially searching the record and granting relief based upon arguments that were not raised … . “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'” … . …

RLI established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it based upon CFC's failure to provide timely notice of the occurrence and suit. “The insured's failure to satisfy the notice requirement constitutes a failure to comply with a condition precedent which, as a matter of law, vitiates the contract'” … . This rule applies to excess carriers as well as primary carriers … . “[A] justifiable lack of knowledge of insurance coverage may excuse a delay in reporting an occurrence”… . To establish a valid excuse due to the insured's alleged ignorance of insurance coverage, the insured has the burden of proving “a justifiable lack of knowledge of insurance coverage” and “reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain whether coverage existed” upon receiving information “which would have prompted any person of ordinary prudence to consult either an attorney or an insurance broker” … . Here, in support of its motion, RLI submitted evidence that counsel for … CFC in the underlying action performed an investigation and learned the detailed information regarding the umbrella policy in March 2005. Such knowledge is imputed to CFC … . As such, RLI established that RLI was given no notice of the accident or lawsuit until August 2006, and CFC did not provide notice until … June 2010. Daimler Chrysler Ins. Co. v Keller, 2018 NY Slip Op 05999, Second Dept 9-12-18

INSURANCE LAW (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD TO AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY UMBRELLA INSURER OF THE CLAIM WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD TO AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY UMBRELLA INSURER OF THE CLAIM WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INSURANCE LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD TO AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY UMBRELLA INSURER OF THE CLAIM WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP).

The First Department, upon remittitur from the Ct. of Appeals, held that the denial of a reporter’s motion to quash a subpoena for evidence of her jailhouse interview of the defendant is not appealable:

“[N]o appeal lies from an order arising out of a criminal proceeding absent specific statutory authorization” (Matter of People v Juarez , _NY3d_, 2018 NY Slip Op 04684 [2018]), quoting People v Santos , 64 NY2d 702, 704 [1984]). As pertinent to the issue in this case, “an order determining a motion to quash a subpoena . . . issued in the course of prosecution of a criminal action, arises out of a criminal proceeding for which no direct appellate review is authorized” (id.; see CPL art 450). People v Juarez, 2018 NY Slip Op 05969, First Dept 9-6-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF A REPORTER’S MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA FOR EVIDENCE OF HER JAILHOUSE INTERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS NOT APPEALABLE (CT APP))

,

HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant church demonstrated it was entitled to the homeowner exemption from liability in this Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) actions stemming from plaintiff's fall from a scaffold. The failure to plead the exemption as a defense did not preclude raising it in the summary judgment motion. The Archdiocese was not an agent of the owner because it did not have the authority to control or supervise plaintiff's work.  And the Labor Law 200 cause of action should have been dismissed because the accident involved the means and methods of work controlled solely by plaintiff's employer:

Defendant Catholic Church of Christ the King made a prima facie showing that the accident in which plaintiff was injured falls within the exemption to Labor Law § 240(1) and Labor Law § 241(6) for “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” (Labor Law § 240[1]; Labor Law § 241). Plaintiff was repairing a detached garage associated with a church rectory used for both residential and church purposes … . Moreover, the certificate of occupancy indicates that the rectory constituted a dwelling and a private garage … . Defendant's failure to plead this affirmative defense in its answer does not mandate the denial of its motion, since plaintiff was not surprised by the defense, and fully opposed the motion (see CPLR 3018[b] … ).

Plaintiff failed to raise issues of fact as to the applicability of the homeowner exemption. His assertion that the garage was exclusively restricted to use by teachers at an elementary school owned by the church is unsupported by the record. Bautista v Archdiocese of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 05959, First Dept 8-30-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3018 (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT))/HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT))

,

OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant's motion for summary judgment in this dog bite case should not have been granted. An affidavit from plaintiff's neighbor raised a question of fact whether defendant was aware of the dog's vicious propensities. The Second Department further determined that the fact that the out-of-state affidavit was not accompanied by a certificate of conformity did not render it inadmissible:

…[I]n opposition to the motion, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant's dog had vicious propensities, and whether the defendant knew or should have known of the dog's alleged vicious propensities … . According to an affidavit of the plaintiff's neighbor Michael Walters, submitted in opposition to the motion, on two occasions prior to the incident, the defendant warned Walters to be careful near the dog because he bites. This affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had actual and/or constructive notice that the dog had vicious propensities … . Contrary to the defendant's contention, Walters' affidavit was admissible, notwithstanding that it was subscribed and sworn to out of state and not accompanied by a certificate of conformity as required by CPLR 2309(c), as such a defect is not fatal, and no substantial right of the defendant was prejudiced by disregarding the defect … . Lipinsky v Yarusso, 2018 NY Slip Op 05925, Second Dept 8-29-18

ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, (CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY, DOG BITE, OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT))/DOG BITE (OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY, DOG BITE, OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2309 (CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY, DOG BITE, OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT))/CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (DOG BITE, OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT))/OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT (CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY, DOG BITE, OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled, pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1501 and the statute of limitations, to cancel and discharge a mortgage which defendant bank (Deutsche Bank) had accelerated more than six years before. Defendant bank argued that a letter sent by the original property owner, Aird (who had taken out the mortgage), pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-101, acknowledged the debt and revived the time-barred claim. Supreme Court properly rejected that argument:

“General Obligations Law § 17-101 effectively revives a time-barred claim when the debtor has signed a writing which validly acknowledges the debt” … . To constitute a valid acknowledgment, a “writing must be signed and recognize an existing debt and must contain nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it” … . Contrary to Deutsche Bank's contention, a letter written by Aird that accompanied his second short sale package submitted to Deutsche Bank's loan servicer did not constitute an unqualified acknowledgment of the debt or manifest a promise to repay the debt sufficient to reset the running of the statute of limitations … . Karpa Realty Group, LLC v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 05921, Second Dept 8-29-18

Similar issues and result in Yadegar v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co, 2018 NY Slip Op 05957, Second Dept 8-29-18

FORECLOSURE (LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (FORECLOSURE, GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101 LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT).

In this Lien Law action, the Second Department determined Supreme Court improperly precluded the plaintiff from offering evidence of the value and condition of items allegedly sold or damaged by defendants, the owners/operators of a storage unit plaintiff had rented. Defendants allegedly mistakenly believed plaintiff had failed to pay the rental fees and held an auction. After plaintiff regained control of the unit, plaintiff disposed of most of the contents, despite defendants' requests to inspect the items:

Although the defendants demonstrated that the plaintiff disposed of the majority of the items remaining in the storage unit after he regained control and possession of the unit, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's conduct rose to the level of being intentional or willful … . …

Under the circumstances of this case, the appropriate sanction is to preclude evidence of the items disposed by the plaintiff that were not available for inspection by the defendants … . Heins v Public Stor., 2018 NY Slip Op 05919, Second Dept 8-29-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SPOLIATION, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT))/LIEN LAW (SPOLIATION, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT))

,

EMAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined emails submitted in reply papers should not have been considered:

The purpose of a reply affidavit or affirmation is to respond to arguments made in opposition to the movant's motion and not to introduce new arguments or grounds in support of the relief sought … . There are exceptions to this rule, including when evidence is submitted in response to allegations made for the first time in opposition, or when the other party is given an opportunity to respond to the reply papers … . Neither of those exceptions applies here. The time for the defendant to produce the letters allegedly from the plaintiff transferring his interest in the shares would have been in support of her cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment declaring that she is the sole owner of the shares. There was no new allegation in the plaintiff's opposition to the cross motion that would have warranted the defendant's submission of the letters in reply. Further, the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to respond by way of surreply or oral argument. An unrecorded, in-chambers discussion of the cross motion cannot be deemed an opportunity to respond, especially in light of the plaintiff's claim on appeal that the letters are forgeries. Moreover, the defendant did not plead a demand for a declaratory judgment in a counterclaim … . The defendant also did not assert a claim to sole ownership of the shares in her pleading. Gelaj v Gelaj, 2018 NY Slip Op 05917, Second Dept 8-29-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY, EMAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (EMAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (REPLY, EMAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (REPLY, EVIDENCE, MAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS CLAIM THAT NOTICE BY MAIL WAS NOT RECEIVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusal to vacate a default judgment. Although the corporate defendant (Greenville) was not served personally, it failed to explain why it did not receive the summons and complaint:

CPLR 317 permits a defendant who has been served with a summons other than by personal delivery to defend the action upon a finding by the court that the defendant did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a potentially meritorious defense … . “[S]ervice on a corporation through delivery of process to the Secretary of State is not personal delivery' to the corporation” … . “The mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint is not sufficient to establish lack of actual notice of the action in time to defend for the purpose of CPLR 317” … . Whether to grant relief pursuant to CPLR 317 is discretionary … , and relief may be denied “where, for example, a defendant's failure to personally receive notice of the summons was a result of a deliberate attempt to avoid such notice” … .

Here, Greenville did not contend that the address it kept on file with the Secretary of State was incorrect, and its shareholders effectively claimed ignorance as to why the summons and complaint were “unclaimed,” without offering any details as to how Greenville ordinarily received mail at that address. Further, Greenville offered no explanation as to why it did not receive any of the other correspondence from the plaintiff, all of which were sent to the same address. Under these circumstances, Greenville's conclusory and unsubstantiated denial of service of the certified mailing card and other correspondence from the plaintiff was insufficient to establish that it did not have actual notice of the action in time to defend … . Stevens v Stepanski, 2018 NY Slip Op 05954, Second Dept 8-29-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS CLAIM THAT NOTICE BY MAIL WAS NOT RECEIVED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 317  (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS CLAIM THAT NOTICE BY MAIL WAS NOT RECEIVED (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS  (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS CLAIM THAT NOTICE BY MAIL WAS NOT RECEIVED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS CLAIM THAT NOTICE BY MAIL WAS NOT RECEIVED (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS CLAIM THAT NOTICE BY MAIL WAS NOT RECEIVED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defamation action, based upon a complaint made to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was properly dismissed. The complaint did not include the allegedly defamatory statement (a pleading failure) and the statement enjoyed qualified privilege. A remark posted on the Internet, which stated that defendant (Studer) had “seen and heard” horror stories about plaintiffs' treatment of animals, was nonactionable opinion:

… [W]ith respect to the plaintiffs' contention that Studer was liable for defamation based on the statements she made to the SPCA, since the amended complaint failed to set forth “the particular words complained of,” that branch of Studer's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the defamation cause of action as was based on those statements should have been granted (CPLR 3016[a]…). In any event, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that Studer demonstrated, prima facie, that the allegedly defamatory statements enjoyed a qualified privilege. Protection from defamation is afforded where the person making the statements does so fairly “in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of his [or her] own affairs, in a matter where his [or her] interest is concerned” …  Here, since the evidence establishes that Studer made the statements to the SPCA in a good faith effort to obtain the aid of a law enforcement agency in addressing a potentially unsafe environment which children in her community frequented, the statements are subject to a qualified privilege … . …

We also agree with the Supreme Court's determination to reject the plaintiffs' contention that Studer was liable for defamation based on the Internet post. Studer established, prima facie, that this post constituted a nonactionable expression of opinion inasmuch as it consisted of imprecise, subjective characterizations which could not be objectively verified … . New York Horse Rescue Corp. v Suffolk County Socy. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2018 NY Slip Op 05934, Second Dept 8-29-18

DEFAMATION (DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3016 (DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (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