You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

ALTHOUGH THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS WAIVED IF NOT ASSERTED IN THE ANSWER OR A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, IT MAY BE ADDED TO AN ANSWER AMENDED BY LEAVE OF COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in the context of a foreclosure action, determined that, although the lack of standing defense is waived if not asserted in the answer or a pre-answer motion to dismiss, the defense can be added in an answer amended by leave of court:

“[A]n argument that a plaintiff lacks standing, if not asserted in the defendant’s answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, is waived pursuant to CPLR 3211(e)” … . “Defenses waived under CPLR 3211(e) can nevertheless be interposed in an answer amended by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), as long as the amendment does not cause the other party prejudice or surprise resulting from the delay, and is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit”… . “The decision of whether to allow an amendment is committed almost entirely to the [motion] court’s discretion'” … .

Here, in opposition to that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to amend his answer to add the affirmative defense of lack of standing, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any prejudice or surprise that would result from the amendment, or that the proposed affirmative defense was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Carter, 2018 NY Slip Op 05618, Second Dept 8-1-18

 

CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff in this slip and fall case was not entitled to a default judgment and defendant’s cross motion to compel acceptance of a late answer was properly granted:

On July 28, 2015, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell down a stairway leading to the basement of premises owned by the defendant. According to an affidavit of service, the defendant was served with the summons and complaint on September 1, 2015, when it was delivered to a person of suitable age and discretion at his residence. The affidavit of service also provided that the summons and complaint were mailed to the defendant’s residence on September 2, 2015. On or about March 3, 2016, the defendant served a late answer, which the plaintiff rejected as untimely. The plaintiff subsequently moved pursuant to CPLR 3215(f) for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant on the issue of liability. The defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to compel the plaintiff to accept his late answer. The defendant argued that he was not properly served, that his delay in answering the complaint was brief, that he had a potentially meritorious defense, and that the case should proceed on the merits. Stavola v Bodd. 2018 NY Slip Op 05617, Second Dept 8-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3215 (CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3212 (CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ANSWER (CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT BY TENANTS AGAINST LANDLORDS ALLEGING FAILURE TO PROVIDE RENT-STABILIZED LEASES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AT THE PRE-ANSWER STAGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the class action complaint by tenants alleging the failure to provide rent-stabilized leases should not have been dismissed at the pre-answer stage:

“Pursuant to CPLR 902, a motion to determine whether a class action may be maintained is to be made within 60 days after the time to serve the responsive pleading has expired” … . Because the time to make such a motion had not occurred, it was premature, in this case, for the court to engage in a detailed analysis of whether the requirements for class certification were met … .

It does not appear conclusively from the complaint that, as a matter of law, there is no basis for class action relief… . For example, plaintiffs allege that some defendants receive J-51 tax benefits and are therefore required to provide tenants with rent-stabilized leases but failed to do so. This claim was also made in Borden (see 24 NY3d at 390), and the Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs satisfied the class action requirements of numerosity, predominance of common issues of law or fact, typicality of the named plaintiffs’ claims, adequate representation, and superiority of class action versus other methods (see id. at 399-400).

Although the instant action involves 11 buildings and 8 owners, all the buildings are allegedly managed by Big City Realty Management, and all the owners are allegedly part of one holding company, Big City Acquisitions. Moreover, Downing — another putative class action about J-51 (see 107 AD3d at 88) — involved “a residential complex owned by defendants” (id.). Maddicks v Big City Props., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05523, First Dept 7-26-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT BY TENANTS AGAINST LANDLORDS ALLEGING FAILURE TO PROVIDE RENT-STABILIZED LEASES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AT THE PRE-ANSWER STAGE (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 902 (CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT BY TENANTS AGAINST LANDLORDS ALLEGING FAILURE TO PROVIDE RENT-STABILIZED LEASES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AT THE PRE-ANSWER STAGE (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT BY TENANTS AGAINST LANDLORDS ALLEGING FAILURE TO PROVIDE RENT-STABILIZED LEASES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AT THE PRE-ANSWER STAGE (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, (CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT BY TENANTS AGAINST LANDLORDS ALLEGING FAILURE TO PROVIDE RENT-STABILIZED LEASES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AT THE PRE-ANSWER STAGE (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion in limine to strike plaintiff’s expert witness disclosure and preclude the expert from testifying should not have been granted. The court noted that the evidentiary motion was appealable because it involved the merits of this swimming pool injury case and affected a substantial right. The disclosure indicated the expert would testify about New York State code provisions and ANSI/INSPI-4 standards for slides used in swimming pools. Plaintiff alleged she was injured when her head struck the bottom of the pool after sliding into the water head first:

… [T]he court erred in granting that part of the motion to strike the expert witness disclosure and to preclude the expert from testifying with respect to the 2010 Residential Code of New York State (Residential Code) and the ANSI/NSPI-4 standard for aboveground residential swimming pools, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Section 1.2 of that standard provides that “[a]boveground/onground residential swimming pools are for swimming and wading only. No . . . slides or other equipment are to be added to an aboveground/onground pool that in any way indicates that an aboveground/onground pool may be used or intended for . . . sliding purposes,” and the ANSI/NSPI-4 standard is incorporated in the Residential Code that was in effect at the time of plaintiff’s accident (see 2010 Residential Code of New York State §§ R102.6, G109.1). Inasmuch as the ANSI/NSPI-4 standard applies only to residential pools, and the Residential Code applies to family dwellings (see Residential Code § R101.2), we conclude that the Residential Code section adopting the ANSI/NSPI-4 standard applies to private homeowners. Thus, we further conclude that plaintiff’s expert may properly rely on any violation of the ANSI/NSPI-4 standard as “some evidence” of defendants’ negligence … . Redmond v Redmond, 2018 NY Slip Op 05417, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION  (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS  (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR USE OF SLIDES IN SWIMMING POOLS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STRUCK HER HEAD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE POOL AFTER SLIDING HEAD FIRST, THE RULING ON THE MOTION IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE MERITS AND AFFECTS A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT (FOURTH DEPT))

, , , ,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF TENANTS ALLEGING LANDLORDS’ MISHANDLING OF SECURITY DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint adequately pled a class action concerning defendants-landlords’ alleged mishandling of security deposits, including allegations of conversion and co-mingling:

… [P]laintiffs adequately alleged all of the prerequisites to class certification… . Plaintiffs alleged that the class of tenants consists of more than 200 members, thereby satisfying the numerosity requirement … . Plaintiffs also alleged that the common issue is whether, by commingling the security deposits of their tenants, defendants acted unlawfully, and that the individual issues are the amount of the security deposit and defendants’ entitlement to deductions therefrom… . Thus, we conclude that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the common issues predominate (see CPLR 901 [a] [2]). Regarding the typicality requirement, plaintiffs alleged that their claims arise from “the same course of conduct and are based on the same theories as the other class members” … . Plaintiffs also alleged that they can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class inasmuch as they do not have conflicting interests with other class members.. . Plaintiffs satisfied the superiority requirement by alleging that the damages likely suffered by each of the tenants range between $475 and $4,500, and “the cost of prosecuting individual actions would deprive many of the putative class members of their day in court” … . …

… [T]the amended complaint adequately alleges a cause of action for conversion in violation of General Obligations Law § 7-103 … . …

… [T]he court erred in granting the motion with respect to the second cause of action, alleging that defendants violated Property Conservation Code of the City of Syracuse § 27-125, inasmuch as that section gives rise to a private cause of action … . …

…[T]the lease includes a clause requiring tenants to pay attorneys’ fees if they breach the lease and, pursuant to Real Property Law § 234, the tenant has the “same benefit [to attorneys’ fees as] the lease imposes in favor of the landlord” … . Rubman v Osuchowski, 2018 NY Slip Op 05416, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF TENANTS ALLEGING LANDLORDS’ MISHANDLING OF SECURITY DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT  (CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF TENANTS ALLEGING LANDLORDS’ MISHANDLING OF SECURITY DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF TENANTS ALLEGING LANDLORDS’ MISHANDLING OF SECURITY DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW  (CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF TENANTS ALLEGING LANDLORDS’ MISHANDLING OF SECURITY DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/CONVERSION (CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF TENANTS ALLEGING LANDLORDS’ MISHANDLING OF SECURITY DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed because of plaintiff’s discovery violations:

“The nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is within the broad discretion of the motion court” … . ” The drastic remedy of striking a pleading is warranted where the party’s failure to comply with court-ordered discovery is willful and contumacious'” … . “The willful or contumacious character of a party’s conduct can be inferred from the party’s repeated failure to respond to demands or to comply with discovery orders” …  and the absence of a reasonable excuse for these failures … . ” Absent an improvident exercise of discretion, the determination to impose sanctions for conduct that frustrates the purpose of the CPLR should not be disturbed'” … .

Here, the willful and contumacious character of the plaintiff’s conduct can be inferred, initially, from his inadequate verified bill of particulars and response to the notice for discovery and inspection, both served nearly one year after service of the demand for a verified bill of particulars and the notice for discovery and inspection. Thereafter, the plaintiff failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive at the January 8, 2016, conference to produce any outstanding discovery within 30 days, and this failure to comply was followed by further noncompliance after the February 24, 2016, conference. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to respond in any manner to the other discovery demands. Westervelt v Westervelt, 2018 NY Slip Op 05519, Second Dept 7-25-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))/DISCOVERY  (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT CONCERNING CONTROL OF CERTAIN CAYUGA NATION PROPERTY ON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION GROUNDS, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that Supreme Court properly refused to dismiss the complaint on subject matter jurisdiction grounds. The complaint asserts one faction of the Cayuga Nation, defendants, are improperly in control of and trespassing on certain Nation property. Supreme Court granted to plaintiffs a preliminary injunction based upon a ruling by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The dissenting justices argued that the New York courts do not have jurisdiction over tribal affairs and the complaint should have been dismissed on that ground:

Defendants contend that the court erred in denying their motion because the courts of New York have no power to determine who controls the Nation. Although we agree with defendants that we may not resolve the Nation’s leadership dispute, we are not required to do so in this appeal. Rather, we accord due deference to the BIA’s conclusion that the Nation, at least with respect to that issue, has resolved the dispute in favor of plaintiff. * * *

We caution that we do not determine which party is the proper governing body of the Nation, nor does our determination prevent the Nation from resolving that dispute differently according to its law in the future. The Nation, as a sovereign body, retains full authority to reconcile its own internal governance disputes according to its laws. Until such action occurs, however, we accord deference to the BIA’s determination that plaintiff is the proper body to enforce the Nation’s rights, including its rights to control the property at issue in this action. Cayuga Nation v Campbell, 2018 NY Slip Op 05427, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

INDIAN LAW (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT CONCERNING CONTROL OF CERTAIN CAYUGA NATION PROPERTY ON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION GROUNDS, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INDIAN LAW, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT CONCERNING CONTROL OF CERTAIN CAYUGA NATION PROPERTY ON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION GROUNDS, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT))/CAYUGA NATION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT CONCERNING CONTROL OF CERTAIN CAYUGA NATION PROPERTY ON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION GROUNDS, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT)

, , ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the medical malpractice action should not have been dismissed on the ground that a motion to substitute the representative of plaintiff’s estate was not timely made:

In October 2004, Patricia Tokar (hereinafter Patricia) commenced this action to recover damages for medical malpractice based upon treatment she received from 2000 to 2002. Patricia’s deposition was taken in September 2006 and again in August 2009, while the defendant’s deposition was taken in April 2008. A note of issue was filed in December 2009. The matter was called for trial on 12 separate occasions between 2011 and 2012. By letter dated October 19, 2012, Patricia’s attorney informed the defendant’s attorney that Patricia had died two weeks before, and that her husband, Stanley Tokar (hereinafter Stanley), would be seeking to be appointed administrator of Patricia’s estate after he completed his mourning period. In October 2014, Stanley filed a petition for letters of administration of Patricia’s estate. By order to show cause dated May 12, 2015, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint for failure to seek a timely substitution of parties on behalf of Patricia. On June 5, 2015, letters of administration were issued to Stanley, who then moved, seven days later, on June 12, 2015, pursuant to CPLR 1012, to be substituted, as administrator of Patricia’s estate, as the plaintiff in the action. The Supreme Court denied Stanley’s motion and granted the defendant’s motion … .  …

CPLR 1021 provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the event requiring substitution occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made.” The determination of reasonableness requires consideration of several factors, including the diligence of the party seeking substitution, prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or defense has potential merit … .

Here, the record does not support a finding that there was a lack of diligence in the filing of the petition for Stanley to be substituted, or that the defendant was prejudiced by the delay in the appointment of Stanley as administrator, particularly since this case turns on medical records in the defendant’s possession … . Further, Stanley sufficiently demonstrated that the action has potential merit … . Moreover, there is a strong public policy that matters should be disposed of on the merits … . ​Tokar v Weissberg, 2018 NY Slip Op 05516, Second Dept 7-25-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) did not follow town code procedure when it refused to consider the review and comments submitted by the planning board in connection with area variances of lot-width requirements for a proposed subdivision. The court also noted that a declaratory judgment is not an available remedy for challenging an administrative determination:

The Town’s Zoning Code (Code) provides that “[t]he [ZBA] shall refer applications for variance requests to the Planning Board for review and comments. The Planning Board shall forward comments within 30 days of the close of a public hearing of the [ZBA]” … . Here, the Planning Board conducted a meeting on June 20, 2016, and voted to approve the relevant variances. On June 27, 2016, the ZBA held a public hearing and postponed its decision on the variance application until certain residents could comment at an upcoming July 18, 2016 Planning Board meeting. At the July 18, 2016 Planning Board meeting, various residents opposed the variances, and the Planning Board reversed its initial June 20, 2016 determination and voted not to approve the area variances. Thereafter, the ZBA determined that the Planning Board did not have the authority to reverse its prior determination and that the July 18, 2016 vote was null and void. The ZBA met on August 22, 2016 and voted to approve the area variances without considering the Planning Board’s July 18, 2016 review and comments.

” It is well established that [c]ourts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure’ ” … . Here, inasmuch as no ZBA public hearing took place until June 27, 2016, the June 20, 2016 action on the variance application by the Planning Board was procedurally improper … . The ZBA’s refusal to consider the procedurally compliant July 18, 2016 review and comments submitted by the Planning Board therefore violated the procedure set forth in section 302 (G) of the Code. We thus conclude that the ZBA’s grant of the area variances was “made in violation of lawful procedure [and] was affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803 [3]). Matter of Schulz v Town of Hopewell Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2018 NY Slip Op 05418, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

ZONING (THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ZONING, THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ZONING, THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/VARIANCES (ZONING, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

AN UNPLEADED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE SUCCESSFULLY RAISED TO DEFEAT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that an unpleaded affirmative defense may be successfully raised to defeat a motion for summary judgment:

Defendants allegedly embezzled over $100,000 from plaintiffs, their alleged former employers. Plaintiffs then commenced this action for fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants both counterclaimed for, inter alia, slander per se and the violations of Labor Law §§ 162 (2), 191 (3), 195 (1) (a), and 195 (5). Defendant Carrie Massaro also counterclaimed for a violation of section 198 and for unpaid overtime under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) … . * * * … [T]he affidavit of plaintiff …. raises triable issues of fact regarding their potential entitlement to the affirmative defense provided by [Labor Law] section 198 (1-b) (ii). Contrary to defendants’ contention, ” [a]n unpleaded affirmative defense may be invoked to defeat a motion for summary judgment’ ” … . Thus, although the court properly refused to dismiss the [Labor Law] section 195 (1) (a) counterclaims, the court erred in granting defendants summary judgment on those same counterclaims given plaintiffs’ potential entitlement to the affirmative defense under [Labor Law] section 198 (1-b) (ii) … . Salahuddin v Craver, 2018 NY Slip Op 05429, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy