You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

EVEN THOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WAS REJECTED AS DEFICIENT, THE MOTION CONSTITUTED INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT; THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion to vacate the dismissal of the foreclosure action should have been granted. The bank’s motion for an order of reference made within one year of defendant’s default was a sufficient step toward taking a default judgment within the meaning of CPLR 3215 (c), even though the motion was rejected as deficient:

… [T]he plaintiff initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment by moving for an order of reference within one year of the defendant’s default in the action … . “‘The fact that the Supreme Court rejected the motion as defective is beside the point, as the mere presentment of it established the plaintiff’s intent to proceed toward the entry of judgment and not to abandon the action'” … . Since the plaintiff did not fail to take timely proceedings for a judgment against the defendant within the meaning of CPLR 3215(c), the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate an excuse for its purported delay in moving to vacate the dismissal order … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate the dismissal order was not subject to any specific time limitation … . … Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion … pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Wint, 2025 NY Slip Op 00698, Second Dept 2-5-25

Practice Point: Here the bank’s unsuccessful motion for an order of reference met the criteria for initiating proceedings to take a default judgment within one year of defendants’ default.

 

, , , ,

IT WAS ALLEGED A TEACHER SEXUALLY ABUSED PLAINTIFF STUDENT ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK FOR THREE YEARS ON SCHOOL GROUNDS, SOMETIMES FOLLOWED BY ABUSE OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school’s motion for summary judgment in this Child Victims Act case should not have been granted. It was alleged plaintiff-student was sexually abused by a teacher once or twice a week for three years. Based on the frequency of the alleged abuse, the school did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the abuse and properly supervised the teacher. Because abuse which allegedly occurred off the school premises was preceded by abuse on school grounds, the off-premises-abuse causes of action should not have been dismissed:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . In particular, given the frequency of the alleged abuse, which occurred once or twice per week over the course of three school years in the same closet while the teacher left the other students in his class unattended, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they should have known of the abuse … . Additionally, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether their supervision of the teacher was negligent … .

Further, although the plaintiff alleged acts of sexual abuse that occurred outside of school premises and school hours, the defendants’ submissions showed that those alleged acts were preceded by instances when the plaintiff allegedly was sexually abused by the teacher during school hours on a regular basis. Sallustio v Southern Westchester Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 2025 NY Slip Op 00690, Second Dept 2-5-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise summary of the elements of the causes of action where a teacher is accused of frequently sexually abusing a student both on and off school grounds.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT BASED UPON LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND PROOF OF A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants motion to vacate the default judgment based upon law office failure should have been granted:

In support of the motion to vacate, defendants affirmed that they had retained former counsel and that he had informed them that he would file an answer, but his office failed to do so. However, they did not become aware of this failure until they were served with the default. Although defendants could have provided stronger support by way of an affirmation from former counsel to better substantiate their claim of law office failure, this is not required. Markedly, plaintiff’s submissions in support of his application for costs — included in the record before this Court — establish that his counsel’s office was aware that defendants were represented. In fact, plaintiff’s counsel’s billing records specifically name former counsel and set forth that he was “attorney for defendant[s].” These billing records further demonstrate that plaintiff’s counsel had conversed with former counsel and been informed that an answer was being prepared. These facts, in conjunction with the short duration between entry of default in July 2023 and the subsequent motion to vacate in September 2023, establish that plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay, and that defendants’ failure to file an answer was the result of law office failure and not willfulness on the part of defendants … . * * *

“To establish the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, defendants needed only to make a prima facie showing of legal merit, as the quantum of proof needed to prevail on a CPLR 5015 (a) (1) motion is less than that required when opposing a summary judgment motion” … . In consideration of this minimal standard of proof, defendants’ sworn assertions that plaintiff fraudulently induced them to enter the contract and then breached the contract before any breach on their part establishes a potentially meritorious defense … . Darling v Fernette, 2025 NY Slip Op 00507, Third Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for vacating a default judgment based upon law officer failure, and for demonstrating a meritorious defense to a breach of contract action.

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE “INSANITY” TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO THIS ASSAULT AND FALSE ARREST ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND POLICE OFFICERS; THE TOLL APPLIES WHEN PERSONS ARE UNABLE TO PROTECT THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS BECAUSE OF AN INABILITY TO FUNCTION IN SOCIETY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department remitted the matter for a determination whether the statute of limitations was tolled because of petitioner’s “insanity” in this assault and false arrest action against the city and police officers:

Pursuant to CPLR 208(a) “[i]f a person entitled to commence an action is under a disability because of . . . insanity at the time the cause of action accrues, and . . . the time otherwise limited [for commencing the action] is less than three years, the time shall be extended by the period of disability.” A toll pursuant to CPLR 208(a) does not toll the necessity of filing a timely notice of claim; rather, it tolls only the time in which to apply for leave to serve a late notice of claim … .

CPLR 208(a) provides no definition of the term “insanity” … . However, the Court of Appeals has concluded that the insanity tolling provision should be narrowly construed and is available “only [to] those individuals who are unable to protect their legal rights because of an over-all inability to function in society” … . “[T]he condition of an individual’s mental capabilities is largely a factual question” … . “The task of determining whether the tolling provision [of CPLR 208] applies ‘is a pragmatic one, which necessarily involves consideration of all surrounding facts and circumstances relevant to the claimant’s ability to safeguard his or her legal rights'” … .

Here, the record before us presents a question of fact as to whether the petitioner was “unable to protect [his] legal rights because of an over-all inability to function in society” during the relevant period, as well as the duration of the alleged insanity … . Matter of Sinclair v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 00453, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: CPLR 208(a) provides an “insanity toll” of the statute of limitations for persons unable to protect their legal rights because of an inability to function in society.

 

,

A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY BE MADE ANYTIME AFTER ISSUE IS JOINED; A JUDGE CANNOT REQUIRE THE FILING OF A NOTE OF ISSUE BEFORE A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION CAN BE MADE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should have have denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case on the ground a note of issue had not been filed:

“CPLR 3212(a) provides that any party may move for summary judgment once issue has been joined. The court may ‘set a date after which no such motion may be made’ which must be at least 30 days after the filing of a note of issue (CPLR 3212[a]). The court has no authority to require the filing of a note of issue as a prerequisite to a motion for summary judgment, since CPLR 3212(a) clearly states that a motion for summary judgment may be made once issue has been joined” … . . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have denied Karen Jackson’s motion on that ground. Jackson v Islam, 2025 NY Slip Op 00438, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: A motion fore summary judgment can be made anytime after issue is joined. A judge cannot require that a note of issue be filed first.

 

, ,

THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE OPEN MANHOLE PLAINTIFF DROVE OVER; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality proved it did not have written notice of the road defect and plaintiff’s attempt to raise for the first time an exception to the written notice requirement in response to the summary judgment motion was improper:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she drove her vehicle over an uncovered manhole … .

“A municipality that has enacted a prior written notification law may avoid liability for a defect or hazardous condition that falls within the scope of the law if it can establish that it has not been notified in writing of the existence of the defect or hazard at a specific location” … . “Such [prior written] notice is obviated where the plaintiff demonstrates that the municipality ‘created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence’ or that a ‘special use’ conferred a benefit on the municipality” … .

Here, the plaintiff did not dispute that the defendants established, prima facie, that they had no prior written notice of the alleged roadway defect. In opposition, the plaintiff instead argued that the special use exception applied. The plaintiff, however, failed to allege that exception in either the notice of claim or the complaint … . Therefore, that new theory of liability was improperly raised in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … . Anderson v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 00414, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff raised an exception to the written-notice prerequisite to municipal liability for road defects for the first time in response to the municipality’s motion for summary judgment. That is too late. The exception should be raised in the notice of claim and/or the complaint.

 

, , ,

HERE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S ESTATE BROUGHT A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION IN SUPREME COURT AND DEFENDANTS MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARGUING PLANTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; RATHER THAN DECIDE THE MOTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD WHICH HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION RE: THE APPLICABILITY OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s denial of defendants’ summary judgment motion in this wrongful death action and referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Whether, as defendants argued in their motion, plaintiff’s decedent’s exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation must be determined by the Workers’ Compensation Board before a court can consider the issue:

“The Workers’ Compensation Law ‘is designed to insure that an employee injured in course of employment will be made whole and to protect a coemployee who, acting within the scope of his [or her] employment caused the injury'” … . “[P]rimary jurisdiction” for determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board (hereinafter the Board) … , and it is therefore inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto in the absence of a determination by the Board … . “Where the issue of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law is in dispute, and a plaintiff fails to litigate that issue before the Board, a court should not express an opinion as to the availability of compensation, but should refer the matter to the Board because the Board’s disposition of the plaintiff’s compensation claim is a jurisdictional predicate to the civil action … . Guang Qi Lin v Xiaoping Lu, 2025 NY Slip Op 00309, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here in this wrongful death action defendants argued plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was Workers’ Compensation. Because that issue had not been determined by the Workers’ Compensation Board, Supreme Court could not rule on it and should have referred the matter to the Board which has primary jurisdiction on the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law.

 

, , ,

A FOIL REQUEST FOR A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (ZBA) MEMO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT TO ANNUL A ZBA RULING; MATTER REMITTED FOR REVIEW OF THE MEMO TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AS INTER-AGENCY OR INTRA-AGENCY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of the petition, determined the FOIL request for a memo prepared by the Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) should not have been dismissed on the ground the petitioner had unsuccessfully sought to annul a determination by the ZBA. The matter was remitted for a review of the memo by the judge to determine whether it was exempt from disclosure as inter-agency or intra-agency material:

Supreme Court erred in dismissing this proceeding on the basis that it was rendered academic by the dismissal of a separate CPLR article 78 proceeding in which the petitioner was one of the parties seeking to annul a determination by the ZBA. “FOIL does not require that the party requesting records make any showing of need, good faith or legitimate purpose. The underlying premise [is] that the public is vested with an inherent right to know and that official secrecy is anathematic to our form of government” … . “[T]he standing of one who seeks access to records under [FOIL] is as a member of the public, and is neither enhanced nor restricted because he [or she] is also a litigant or potential litigant” … .

… [E]xemptions are construed “narrowly, and an agency has the burden of demonstrating that an exemption applies ‘by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access'” … . When relying upon an exemption, “it is the agency’s burden to demonstrate that the requested material falls squarely within a FOIL exemption” … . “To meet its burden, the party seeking exemption must present specific, persuasive evidence that the material falls within the exemption. Conclusory assertions that are not supported by any facts are insufficient” … . Here, the exemption at issue provides that each agency shall make its records available for inspection, “except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that . . . are . . . intra-agency materials which are not . . . statistical or factual tabulations or data” … . … Factual data “simply means objective information, in contrast to opinions, ideas, or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making” … . Matter of Supinsky v Town of Huntington, 2025 NY Slip Op 00324, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: A FOIL request should not be denied on the ground the person making the request is, was or could be a litigant in a matter related to the request.

Practice Point: Intra-agency and inter-agency material, meaning opinions, ideas or advice exchanged as part of a deliberative process, is exempt from FOIL disclosure.

 

, ,

RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE NECESSARY PARTIES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THAT THE NECESSARY PARTIES BE SUMMONED; THE COURT’S POWER TO SUMMON NECESSARY PARTIES IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ONLY THE SUMMONED NECESSARY PARTIES THEMSELVES HAVE STANDING TO RAISE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined dismissing the complaint was not the appropriate remedy for petitioners’ failure to include necessary parties, the property owners,, in this Article 78 proceeding challenging zoning variances. Supreme Court should have directed the necessary parties be summoned. The courts power to summon necessary parties is not affected by the running of the statute of limitations. Only the necessary parties themselves have standing to raise the statute of limitations defense:

When a necessary party has not been made a party and is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the court, the proper remedy is not dismissal of the complaint or the petition, but rather for the court to direct that the necessary party be summoned ([CPLR]. § 1001[b] …). Contrary to the respondents’ contention, the Supreme Court’s ability to direct joinder of the property owners at this juncture is not affected by the purported running of the statute of limitations … . Moreover, the respondents lack standing to assert a statute of limitations defense on behalf of the property owners, who have not yet appeared in this proceeding … . Thus, the respondents failed to demonstrate that the petitioners’ failure to join the property owners as respondents warranted dismissal of the petition. Matter of Supinsky v Town of Huntington, 2025 NY Slip Op 00323, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here the dismissal of the petition for failure to include necessary parties was not appropriate. The court should have directed that the necessary parties be summoned.

Practice Point: A court’s power to direct that necessary parties be summoned is not affected by the running of the statute of limitations.

Practice Point: Here only the necessary parties themselves have standing to raise the stature of limitations defense.

 

, ,

THE JUSTICE FOR INJURED WORKERS ACT (JIWA), WHICH TOOK EFFECT DECEMBER 30, 2022, AMENDED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SUCH THAT A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD RULING CANNOT BE GIVEN COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT IN A SUBSEQUENT PERSONAL INJURY ACTION; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT HELD THE JIWA APPLIES RETROACTIVELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, determined the amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Law (the Justice for Injured Workers Act [JIWA]), which precludes giving a Workers’ Compensation Board’s ruling collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent personal injury action, applies retroactively. Therefore the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to add the collateral estoppel defense should have been denied:

Plaintiff alleges that he sustained neck and back injuries in a construction site accident that occurred on August 6, 2020. He commenced this action on September 28, 2020, and separately applied for workers’ compensation benefits. In a decision filed October 19, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board held that plaintiff’s claimed injuries were not causally related to his accident. … [D]efendants moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s neck and back claims, based on the Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision to which, they argued, the court should give collateral estoppel effect. * * *

JIWA’s legislative sponsor explained that its purpose was to correct what the Legislature perceived to be an injustice to injured workers caused by Second Department precedent (see Langdon v WEN Mgt. Co. (147 AD2d 450 [2d Dept 1989]) and left unresolved by the Court of Appeals’ decision in Auqui v Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership (22 NY3d 246 [2013]) … . Thus, JIWA was intended to return to what the Legislature perceived to have been the rule “for almost 80 years” — namely that courts, in third-party actions, would “reject[ ] attempts by defendants to apply collateral estoppel” to decisions reached in the “swift[ ]” and “cursory” workers’ compensation context — and that workers would not be prevented “from exercising their constitutional right to a jury trial” … . Accordingly, the Legislature clearly intended JIWA to be remedial in nature, to correct an unintended judicial interpretation, and to reaffirm what the Legislature believed the law should be. Garcia v Monadnock Constr., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00154, First Dept 1-9-25

Practice Point: The December 30, 2022, amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Law which precludes giving Workers’ Compensation Board rulings collateral estoppel effect in subsequent personal injury actions applies retroactively.

 

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