You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

BANK WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE OF ITS MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE AND JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OCCURRED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, FAILURE OF NOTICE PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff bank was required to provide notice of its motions for an order of reference and a judgment of foreclosure which were made more than a year after defendant’s default. Therefore defendant’s motion to vacate the order of reference and judgment of foreclosure should have been granted. The court noted that the failure of notice was properly raised for the first time on appeal:

The defendant was entitled to notice of the plaintiff’s motions for an order of reference and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(1), which provides, in relevant part, that such notice to a defendant who has not appeared is required “if more than one year has elapsed since the default.” Here, the defendant defaulted in November 2009, and the plaintiff moved for an order of reference in March 2013, more than three years later. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the issue of its failure to comply with CPLR 3215(g)(1) may be raised for the first time on appeal … . The failure to give a party proper notice of a motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion and renders the resulting order void … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Reese, 2018 NY Slip Op 04527, Second Dept 6-20-18

​FORECLOSURE (BANK WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE OF ITS MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE AND JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OCCURRED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, FAILURE OF NOTICE PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, BANK WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE OF ITS MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE AND JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OCCURRED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, FAILURE OF NOTICE PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3215 (FORECLOSURE, BANK WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE DEFENDANT NOTICE OF ITS MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE AND JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BECAUSE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OCCURRED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, FAILURE OF NOTICE PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant (Koonin), the owner/operator of a car involved in an accident with plaintiff, had violated discovery orders and was guilty of willful or contumacious conduct warranting sanction. Supreme Court both struck Konnin’s answer and precluded Koonin from submitting any evidence at trial. The Second Department held that striking the answer was an abuse of discretion:

“The nature and degree of a penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126 for discovery violations is addressed to the court’s discretion” … . “The general rule is that the court will impose a sanction commensurate with the particular disobedience it is designed to punish and go no further than that” … . This Court is vested with corresponding power to substitute its own discretion for that of the motion court, even in the absence of abuse… .

In light of Koonin’s failure to comply with multiple court orders and so-ordered stipulations directing him to appear for the EBT, the Supreme Court properly concluded that Koonin engaged in willful and contumacious conduct… . However, under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant those branches of the motion and cross motion which were to strike Koonin’s answer in light of the fact that the court also granted those branches of the motion and cross motion which were to preclude Koonin from offering any evidence at the time of trial … . Chowdhury v Hudson Val. Limousine Serv., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04526, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3126 (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/DISCOVERY (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/PRECLUDE, MOTION TO  (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))/ANSWER, MOTION TO STRIKE  (DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF DISCOVERY ORDER VIOLATIONS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for leave to replead a private nuisance and trespass action should have been granted. Plaintiffs alleged defendants had negligently planted and watered on their side of plaintiffs’ retaining wall, damaging the wall:

… [T]he court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, for leave to replead … . The standard to be applied on such a motion “is consistent with the standard governing motions for leave to amend pursuant to CPLR 3025″… . In particular, such motions “should be freely granted absent prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, unless the proposed amendment is devoid of merit or palpably insufficient”… .

The proposed amended complaint alleged that the defendants had (1) engaged in “digging, excavating, grading and altering the soil, past the property line with [the] plaintiffs’ property and abutting [the plaintiffs’] property and wall,” (2) planted bushes, shrubs, and trees, and added significant amounts of mulch on the plaintiffs’ property, near the property line, and along the plaintiffs’ wall, and (3) excessively watered the location where the work was performed. The amended complaint further alleged that the “lateral load and pressure has been increased as a result of the planting of trees, bushes, shrubs and plants and the lack of drainage” so as to damage the plaintiffs’ retaining wall. The complaint alleges that this conduct was negligent, and that it constituted a private nuisance and trespass. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, these amended causes of action were neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit … , and no unfair prejudice or surprise to the defendants would arise from permitting the amendment … . Chaikin v Karipas, 2018 NY Slip Op 04525, Second Dept 6-20-18

​REAL PROPERTY (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025  (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRESPASS (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NUISANCE  (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/RETAINING WALL  (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to preclude the plaintiff from presenting evidence at trial should not have been granted. Plaintiff had failed to provide discovery and failed to appear for her court ordered deposition three times. A so-ordered stipulation was entered requiring plaintiff to be deposed on or before March 16, 2015, at a time and place to be agreed upon. Defendant moved to preclude when plaintiff did not appear on March 16, 2015. The court noted that no date for the deposition had been agreed to and therefore preclusion was not warranted:

When a litigant fails to comply with the terms of a conditional order of preclusion, the terms of that order become absolute … . However, the burden of establishing noncompliance rests with the party seeking preclusion … . Because the remedy of preclusion is the functional equivalent of striking a party’s pleading… , it may not be granted where the party can demonstrate a justifiable excuse and a potentially meritorious cause of action or defense … .

ere, the so-ordered stipulation did not set a time, date, or place for the plaintiff’s deposition, instead stating merely that the plaintiff’s deposition was to be held “on or before” March 16, 2015, “at a time and location to be agreed upon.” In light of this, the defendants’ minimal assertion that the plaintiff failed to appear, which relied on the hearsay assertion of an unnamed employee of defense counsel, was insufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff willfully and contumaciously violated the so-ordered stipulation … . Similarly, the defendants did not allege in their motion that the plaintiff had failed to provide the outstanding written discovery that was included in the so-ordered stipulation. Therefore, since the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff knew when and where to appear for her deposition, there was no evidence of ongoing willful or contumacious conduct … . Cannon v 111 Fulton St. Condominium, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04523, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (PRECLUDE, MOTION TO, PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (SECOND DEPT))/DISCOVERY (PRECLUDE, MOTION TO, PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (SECOND DEPT))/PRECLUDE, MOTION TO (PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3126  (PRECLUDE, MOTION TO, PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (SECOND DEPT))/WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT  (PRECLUDE, MOTION TO, PARTY MOVING TO PRECLUDE THE OTHER PARTY FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED UPON VIOLATIONS OF DISCOVERY ORDERS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT, BURDEN NOT MET HERE (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS BY PERSONAL DELIVERY AND MOVED TO VACATE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF LEARNING OF THE SUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment should have been granted. Defendant had not changed the address for service on file with the Secretary of State and did not receive the summons and complaint. Plaintiff knew where defendant’s place of business was and had communicated with defendant at that address:

A defendant who has been served with a summons other than by personal delivery 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 the defendant did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 317 …). …

There is no evidence in the record that the defendant or its agent received actual notice of the summons, which was delivered to the Secretary of State, in time to defend this action … . Although the defendant did not explain why it failed to update its address with the Secretary of State, “there is no necessity for a defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 317 to show a reasonable excuse’ for its delay” … . …

… [T]hrough the affidavit of the defendant’s principal averring that the plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the parties’ oral lease, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . Benchmark Farm, Inc. v Red Horse Farm, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04522, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS BY PERSONAL DELIVERY AND MOVED TO VACATE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF LEARNING OF THE SUIT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 317 (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS BY PERSONAL DELIVERY AND MOVED TO VACATE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF LEARNING OF THE SUIT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT, MOTION TO VACATE (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS BY PERSONAL DELIVERY AND MOVED TO VACATE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF LEARNING OF THE SUIT (SECOND DEPT))

,

PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s (BT Holdings’) cause of action for a declaratory judgment declaring a local law invalid should have been dismissed because petitioner did not file a notice of claim as required by CPLR 9802:

Contrary to BT Holdings’ contention, the notice of claim requirements of CPLR 9802 apply to the causes of action for declaratory relief … . Matter of BT Holdings, LLC v Village of Chester, 2018 NY Slip Op 04544, Second Dept 6-20-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (MUNICIPAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICE OF CLAIM,  PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statutory criteria in CPLR 3216 were not met and the court should not have dismissed the action for neglect to prosecute:

The Supreme Court issued a compliance conference order dated December 3, 2014, directing the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue on or before May 15, 2015, and warning that the failure to do so “shall result in dismissal of the action for unreasonably neglecting to proceed, without further notice.” …

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the statutory preconditions to dismissal, as articulated in CPLR 3216, are met” … . “Effective January 1, 2015, the Legislature amended, in several significant respects, the statutory preconditions to dismissal under CPLR 3216” … . One such precondition is that where a written demand to resume prosecution of the action is made by the court, as here, “the demand shall set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … . Here, the compliance conference order did not set forth any specific conduct constituting neglect by the plaintiff. Accordingly, since one of the statutory preconditions to dismissal was not met, the court should not have directed dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 … . Goetz v Public Serv. Truck Renting, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04534, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3216 (STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the continuing wrong doctrine operated to toll the statute of limitations in this breach of contract/breach of warranty of habitability action involving damage to plaintiff’s cooperative apartment during a 2004 renovation. Plaintiff alleged the damage had never been repaired and brought his action in 2016. The Second Department held that the continuing wrong doctrine tolled the statute of limitations but damages were recoverable for only the six years preceding the commencement of the action:

The continuing wrong doctrine “is usually employed where there is a series of continuing wrongs and serves to toll the running of a period of limitations to the date of the commission of the last wrongful act” … . “In contract actions, the doctrine is applied to extend the statute of limitations when the contract imposes a continuing duty on the breaching party” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that the damage to his unit persisted and had not been repaired, and that such breach constituted a continuing breach of the defendants’ contractual duty to keep the building in good repair and to provide habitable premises … . However, where, as here, the sole remedy sought for the alleged continuing contractual breaches is monetary damages, the plaintiff’s recovery must be limited to damages incurred within the six years prior to commencement of the action … . Garron v Bristol House, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04533, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CONTRACT LAW (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/COOPERATIVES (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/HABITABILITY, WARRANTY OF  (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for a change of venue on discretionary grounds was not brought in the correct county and should not have been granted. The issue was properly before the appellate court despite not having been raised below:

It is undisputed that, pursuant to CPLR 503(a), venue of the Ulster County Action is properly in Ulster County, where Bacci, one of the Ulster plaintiffs, resided at the time the action was commenced … . A motion to change venue on discretionary grounds, unlike motions made as of right, must be made in the county in which the action is pending, or in any county in that judicial district, or in any adjoining county (see CPLR 2212[a]…). The Fenstermen parties, therefore, were required to make a motion pursuant to CPLR 510(3) either in Ulster County, where the Ulster County Action was pending, in another county in the 3rd Judicial District, or in a county contiguous to Ulster County (see CPLR 2212[a] …). Since Ulster County and Nassau County are not contiguous, and Nassau County is not in the 3rd Judicial District, the Fensterman parties’ motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3) based on discretionary grounds was improperly made in the Supreme Court, Nassau County … . Although not argued by the parties in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, but argued on appeal, we reach this issue in the exercise of our discretion because it appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided or explained if raised in the Supreme Court … . Fensterman v Joseph, 2018 NY Slip Op 04532, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 503 (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2212  (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/VENUE  (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should not have been granted:

“It is well established that [a] verdict rendered in favor of a defendant may be successfully challenged as against the weight of the evidence only when the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence”… . “Where a verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” … .

Here, there was sharply conflicting expert testimony with respect to whether plaintiff’s postoperative symptoms could have occurred without negligence on the part of defendant, and the jury was entitled to credit the testimony of defendants’ experts and reject the testimony of plaintiff’s expert … . We conclude that the court erred in setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as “the jury had ample basis to conclude that plaintiff’s postoperative condition was not attributable to any deviation from accepted community standards of medical practice by defendant” … , and thus the jury’s finding that defendant was not negligent was not “palpably irrational or wrong” … . Clark v Loftus, 2018 NY Slip Op 04473, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, MOTION TO, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH 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