You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department modified the judgment in this uninsured driver traffic accident case. Although the Motor Vehicle Accident indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) can withhold payment until it receives a release from the plaintiff pursuant to a settlement agreement, the MVAIC cannot demand a release where, as here, a court has issued a judgment:

“Where judgment has been entered against an uninsured defendant in favor of a qualified person, Insurance Law § 5210 provides that a qualified person may petition the court to compel MVAIC to pay the amount of a judgment against that uninsured defendant that remains unpaid, subject to the limitations contained therein” … . Here, the petitioner demonstrated that she obtained the underlying judgment … , which remained unpaid. However, the sum sought by the petitioner, and the amount the Supreme Court directed MVAIC to pay, exceeded MVAIC’s statutory limit of liability.

The maximum limit of MVAIC’s liability under the Insurance Law is $25,000 (see Insurance Law § 5210[a][1]). MVAIC’s contention that the petitioner is not entitled to interest because the delay in payment was caused by the plaintiff’s failure to execute a release in the proper amount is without merit. While MVAIC has the right to a release upon the settlement of a claim (see Insurance Law § 5213[b]; CPLR 5003-a), MVAIC is not entitled to such a release when ordered to pay on a judgment. Matter of Baker v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03676, Second Dept 5-23-18

​INSURANCE LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, UNINSURED MOTORIST, THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INSURANCE LAW, UNINSURED MOTORIST, THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, UNINSURED MOTORIST, THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/UNINSURED DRIVERS  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, UNINSURED MOTORIST, THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, UNINSURED MOTORIST, THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, UNINSURED MOTORIST, THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s (Citimortgage’s) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action to cancel and discharge a mortgage should not have been granted. The bank started a foreclosure action in 2009 and the statute of limitations expired on March 17, 2015. On March 13, 2015, the bank sent a letter to plaintiff purporting to de-accelerate the loan and re-institute the loan as an installment loan. The Second Department determined the motion to dismiss should not have been converted to a motion for summary judgment and the March 13, 2015, letter did not constitute documentary evidence sufficient to dismiss the complaint. There was no proof when the letter was mailed and it could have arrived after the statute of limitations expired:

Here, the Supreme Court should not have converted Citimortgage’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint to one for summary judgment without providing “adequate notice to the parties” (CPLR 3211[c]…). None of the recognized exceptions to the notice requirement is applicable here. No specific request for summary judgment was made by any party, the parties did not deliberately chart a summary judgment course, and the action did not exclusively involve issues of law which were fully appreciated and argued by the parties … . …

“In order for evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as documentary evidence,’ it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable. Judicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case. However, neither affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1)” … . Furthermore, “[a] lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action”… . Soroush v Citimortgage, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03724, Second Dept 5-23-18

​FORECLOSURE (COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISMISS, MOTION TO, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT))/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL PROCEDURE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT))/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (DISMISS, MOTION TO, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BANK’S LETTER SEEKING TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION RAN OUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A MOTION TO DISMISS COULD BE BASED (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant school district’s motion to set aside the verdict for legal insufficiency should have been granted. Plaintiff assistant principal sued the district after she was injured breaking up a fight between students. She had previously been injured by a student and had complained that more security was needed on the floor where she was hurt. The Second Department explained that plaintiff could not recover unless a special relationship with the school district had been proven:

On a legal sufficiency challenge, whether made pursuant to CPLR 4401 at the close of the plaintiffs’ case or pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict, the relevant inquiry is whether there is any rational process by which the trier of fact could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party … .

Absent the existence of a special relationship between the defendants and the injured plaintiff, liability may not be imposed on the defendants for the breach of a duty owed generally to persons in the school system and members of the public … . A special relationship can be formed, inter alia, if the defendants voluntarily assumed a special duty to the injured plaintiff upon which she justifiably relied … . In order to succeed on this theory, the plaintiffs were required to establish four elements: (1) an assumption by the defendants, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the injured plaintiff; (2) knowledge on the part of defendants’ agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the defendants’ agents and the injured plaintiff; and (4) the injured plaintiff’s justifiable reliance on the defendants’ affirmative undertaking … . Morgan-Word v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 03673, Second Dept 5-23-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE  (ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4404 (SET ASIDE VERDICT, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the writing and execution requirements for an out-of-court stipulation of settlement were not met by an e-mail sent by the defendant in a slip and fall case:

To be enforceable, a stipulation of settlement must conform to the criteria set forth in CPLR 2104 … . Where, as in the instant case, counsel for the parties did not enter into a settlement in open court, an “agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action . . . is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney” … . The plain language of CPLR 2104 requires that “the agreement itself must be in writing, signed by the party (or attorney) to be bound” … . An email message may be considered “subscribed” as required by CPLR 2104, and, therefore, capable of enforcement, where it “contains all material terms of a settlement and a manifestation of mutual accord, and the party to be charged, or his or her agent, types his or her name under circumstances manifesting an intent that the name be treated as a signature” … .

Here, the email confirming the settlement agreement was sent by counsel for the party seeking to enforce the agreement, [defendant]. There is no email subscribed by the plaintiff, who is the party to be charged, or by her former attorney. In the absence of a writing subscribed by the plaintiff or her attorney, the settlement agreement is unenforceable against the plaintiff … . Kataldo v Atlantic Chevrolet Cadillac, 2018 NY Slip Op 03669, Second Dept 5-23-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/SETTLEMENT, STIPULATION OF (EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2014 (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT))

WHERE DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE COURT CONFERENCES, HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his default should have been granted as a matter of law. Defendant submitted an affidavit stating that he had never been notified of the court conferences and the plaintiff did not offer any contrary evidence:

Generally, to vacate an order striking a defendant’s answer based upon his or her default in appearing for a scheduled conference before the court, the defendant is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his or her failure to appear and a potentially meritorious defense … . However, “[i]n the absence of actual notice of [a] conference date, [a] defendant’s failure to appear at that conference [cannot] qualify as a failure to perform a legal duty, the very definition of a default'” … . In that situation, the defendant’s default is considered a nullity and vacatur of the default “is required as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious defense is required” … . Notaro v Performance Team, 2018 NY Slip Op 03692, Second Dept 5-23-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE, WHERE DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE COURT CONFERENCES, HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE (WHERE DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE COURT CONFERENCES, HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT))/COURT CONFERENCES (DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE, WHERE DEFENDANT PRESENTS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE COURT CONFERENCES, HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT MUST BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT))

,

THE TOLLING PROVISION OF CPLR 205 APPLIES TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, THE PETITION, WHICH WAS MARKED OFF THE CALENDAR BUT WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, CAN BE RE-FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the tolling provision in CPLR 205 which allows an action which was dismissed (but not on the merits) to be started again within six months applies to Article 78 actions seeking review of an administrative ruling, here a ruling by the NYS Liquor Authority:

As the petitioner correctly contends, CPLR 205(a) applies not only to actions but also to special proceedings under CPLR article 78 … . The toll of CPLR 205(a) would not apply, however, if the prior proceeding was dismissed on the merits; thus, the court must determine whether the order dismissing the prior proceeding is entitled to res judicata effect … .

Here, the prior proceeding was dismissed after being marked off the calendar. Contrary to the Authority’s contention, “[a] dismissal of an action by being marked off the Trial Calendar is not a dismissal on the merits,” and “[a] new action on the same theory is therefore not barred by the doctrine of res judicata”… . Moreover, there is nothing in the order denying the petitioner’s motion to restore the prior proceeding to the calendar which suggests that the prior proceeding was dismissed with prejudice … . Matter of Lindenwood Cut Rate Liquors, Ltd. v New York State Liq. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03680, Second Dept 5-23-18

​ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE TOLLING PROVISION OF CPLR 205 APPLIES TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, THE PETITION, WHICH WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, CAN BE RE-FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE TOLLING PROVISION OF CPLR 205 APPLIES TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, THE PETITION, WHICH WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, CAN BE RE-FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 205 (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE TOLLING PROVISION OF CPLR 205 APPLIES TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, THE PETITION, WHICH WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, CAN BE RE-FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined, although the usual rule is one who signs an agreement is deemed to have read it, the rule may not apply when there is a relationship of trust and confidence between the parties and reliance on the assurances of a party (here the parties to a trust agreement were father and son). Plaintiff alleged he was fraudulently induced to sign the agreement. The court noted that a certified, unsigned transcript of a deposition was admissible because the transcript had been mailed to opposing counsel more than 60 days before the motion was brought:

Plaintiff’s claim … is that defendant led him to believe that the documentation that defendant presented for his signature (a trust agreement and two deeds) was for the conveyance of [one condominium unit] only. In fact, the paperwork provided for the conveyance of [two condominium units] to the trust. Ordinarily a person is bound by the terms of an instrument he or she signs, and may not claim to have justifiably relied on false representations concerning the contents of a document that he or she failed to read without valid excuse … . In this case, however, whether this principle applies to bar plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement claim … cannot be determined as a matter of law because plaintiff alleges that he and defendant, his son, had a relationship of trust and confidence … . Tsai Chung Chao v Chao, 2018 NY Slip Op 03620, First Dept 5-17-18

​CONTRACT LAW (ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/DEPOSITIONS (A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))

THE TIME PERIOD FOR LEARNING THE IDENTITY OF DEFENDANTS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A PLAINTIFF RETAINS COUNSEL, HERE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WHEN COUNSEL WAS RETAINED THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT NAMED DEFENDANTS AS ‘JOHN DOES’ WHO WERE NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, THE ACTION WAS DEEMED TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the time period for substituting a named defendant for a “John Doe” in a complaint does not begin to run when plaintiff retains counsel. Plaintiff alleged an overhead door fell on him and brought a negligence and products liability action naming “John Doe” defendants. The action was commenced when plaintiff retained counsel on August 1, 2014, three days before the statute of limitations expired. The attorney acted quickly by sending an investigator to the accident scene. The named defendants were added to amended complaints after the statute had run. The Third Department held Supreme Court correctly dismissed the action as time-barred:

A plaintiff who is unaware of the name or identity of a defendant may proceed against such defendant by designating so much of his or her name as is known (see CPLR 1024) and must show that he or she made timely and diligent efforts to ascertain the identity of an unknown defendant prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations… . In the absence of evidence that a plaintiff made the requisite timely and diligent efforts to identify an unknown defendant, he or she may not take advantage of the procedural mechanism provided by CPLR 1024 … .

We conclude that Supreme Court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to establish that he made timely and diligent efforts to discover defendants’ identities prior to when the statute of limitations expired on August 4, 2014 … . The only action that plaintiff took was retaining counsel on August 1, 2014, three days before the statute of limitations expired. Such fact, however, does not relieve him of his obligation to exercise diligent efforts. Indeed, we note that, upon retention, counsel immediately took action by sending an investigator to the accident scene. There is no explanation as to why plaintiff waited so long to retain counsel or any indication that he was somehow precluded from doing so prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Moreover, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, preaction discovery under CPLR 3102 (c) is not limited to those parties who appear with counsel.

To that end, we reject plaintiff’s assertion that whether he exercised due diligence must be measured from the point when he retained counsel … . Plaintiff’s additional contention that the duty to exercise due diligence for purposes of CPLR 1024 commences when litigation is reasonably foreseeable is improperly raised for the first time on appeal … and, in any event, is without merit. Walker v Glaxosmithkline, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03581, Third Dept 5-17-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (JOHN DOES, THE TIME PERIOD FOR LEARNING THE IDENTITY OF DEFENDANTS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A PLAINTIFF RETAINS COUNSEL, HERE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WHEN COUNSEL WAS RETAINED THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT NAMED DEFENDANTS AS ‘JOHN DOES’ WHO WERE NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, THE ACTION WAS DEEMED TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 1024  (JOHN DOES, THE TIME PERIOD FOR LEARNING THE IDENTITY OF DEFENDANTS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A PLAINTIFF RETAINS COUNSEL, HERE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WHEN COUNSEL WAS RETAINED THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT NAMED DEFENDANTS AS ‘JOHN DOES’ WHO WERE NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, THE ACTION WAS DEEMED TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3102 (JOHN DOES,  THE TIME PERIOD FOR LEARNING THE IDENTITY OF DEFENDANTS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A PLAINTIFF RETAINS COUNSEL, HERE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WHEN COUNSEL WAS RETAINED THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT NAMED DEFENDANTS AS ‘JOHN DOES’ WHO WERE NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, THE ACTION WAS DEEMED TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT))/JOHN DOES (CIVIL PROCEDURE,  THE TIME PERIOD FOR LEARNING THE IDENTITY OF DEFENDANTS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A PLAINTIFF RETAINS COUNSEL, HERE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WHEN COUNSEL WAS RETAINED THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT NAMED DEFENDANTS AS ‘JOHN DOES’ WHO WERE NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, THE ACTION WAS DEEMED TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ gross negligence cause of action and demand for punitive damages should not have been dismissed. Plaintiffs alleged the defendant insurer (State Farm) and the defendant engineering firm (H2M) were grossly negligent in supervising the remediation of oil contamination on plaintiffs’ property. The Second Department noted that the causes of action in the amended complaint related back to the allegations in the original complaint and were not, therefore time-barred:

The Supreme Court should not have granted those branches of State Farm’s and H2M’s motions which were to dismiss the cause of action alleging gross negligence insofar as asserted against each of them. As the original complaint gave notice of the transactions or occurrences to be proven as to the gross negligence causes of action, those causes of action related back to the date of timely filing of the original complaint … .

The amended complaint stated a viable gross negligence cause of action as against State Farm and H2M. Gross negligence “differs in kind, not only degree, from claims of ordinary negligence” … . “To constitute gross negligence, a party’s conduct must smack[ ] of intentional wrongdoing’ or evince[ ] a reckless indifference to the rights of others'”… .. Generally, the question of gross negligence is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact… .

The allegations, inter alia, that State Farm and H2M greatly exacerbated the existing damage to the property by causing the spread of the existing contamination and by directing the backfilling of areas of the property after leaving in place significant existing contamination are sufficient to support a gross negligence cause of action … . Bennett v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 03499, Second Dept 5-16-18

​NEGLIGENCE (GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION BACK, GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK (AMENDED COMPLAINT, GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

,

FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY STEPS TOWARD OBTAINING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure complaint should not have been dismissed on the ground that the bank had not taken proceedings for the entry of a default judgment within a year of defendants’ default. It was enough that the bank took preliminary steps toward obtaining a default judgment within the year:

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” “It is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . “Rather, it is enough that the plaintiff timely takes the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference’ to establish that it initiated proceedings for entry of a judgment within one year of the default’ for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c)” … . Here, the plaintiff took the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference … within one year of the defendants’ default and, thus, did not abandon the action … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Delisser, 2018 NY Slip Op 03504, Second Dept 5-16-18

​FORECLOSURE (DEFAULT, FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY STEPS TOWARD OBTAINING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT, FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY STEPS TOWARD OBTAINING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3315 (DEFAULT, FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY STEPS TOWARD OBTAINING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY STEPS TOWARD OBTAINING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT (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