You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING, MOTHER AGREED FATHER’S JAIL SENTENCE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED IN RETURN FOR FATHER’S AGREEMENT TO PAY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have refused to allow a settlement of this child support proceeding by stipulation. The court had directed that father be jailed for six months for failure to pay child support. Mother agreed that the jail sentence should be suspended in return for immediate payment of $3000 and future payments father could make because of a construction job he had just started:

​

We agree with the father that the court erred in refusing to allow the parties to enter into the settlement agreement … . “Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside” … . “As a general matter, open court stipulations are especially favored by the courts inasmuch as they promote efficient dispute resolution, timely management of court calendars, and the integrity of the litigation process’ ” …  Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court erred in refusing to allow the parties to settle the matter, and we therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings. If the parties no longer wish to settle, we direct the court to hold a new confirmation hearing. Matter of Soldato v Feketa, 2018 NY Slip Op 00989, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

FAMILY LAW (CHILD SUPPORT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING, MOTHER AGREED FATHER’S JAIL SENTENCE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED IN RETURN FOR FATHER’S AGREEMENT TO PAY (FOURTH DEPT))/CHILD SUPPORT (STIPULATION, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING, MOTHER AGREED FATHER’S JAIL SENTENCE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED IN RETURN FOR FATHER’S AGREEMENT TO PAY (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY COURT, STIPULATION, CHILD SUPPORT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING, MOTHER AGREED FATHER’S JAIL SENTENCE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED IN RETURN FOR FATHER’S AGREEMENT TO PAY (FOURTH DEPT))/STIPULATION (FAMILY COURT, CHILD SUPPORT, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING, MOTHER AGREED FATHER’S JAIL SENTENCE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED IN RETURN FOR FATHER’S AGREEMENT TO PAY (FOURTH DEPT))/SETTLEMENT (FAMILY COURT, CHILD SUPPORT, STIPULATION, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW A SETTLEMENT OF THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING, MOTHER AGREED FATHER’S JAIL SENTENCE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED IN RETURN FOR FATHER’S AGREEMENT TO PAY (FOURTH DEPT))

,

NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a waste management company (Sealand), which had sought to purchase property for use as a land fill, was properly allowed to intervene in an action to determine the validity of a local law which prohibited expansion of the existing land fill:

​

Upon a timely motion, a nonparty is permitted to intervene as of right in an action involving property where the nonparty “may be affected adversely by the judgment” … . Additionally, after considering “whether the intervention will unduly delay the determination of the action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party,” a court may, in its discretion, permit a nonparty to intervene when, inter alia, the nonparty’s “claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” … . “Whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012 (a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013, is of little practical significance since a timely motion for leave to intervene should be granted, in either event, where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings” … . * * *

​

Here, although Sealand did not seek to intervene until several years after it knew its interests in the property may be implicated in the dispute, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion inasmuch as Sealand’s intervention will not delay resolution of the action and defendants will not suffer prejudice … . Sealand does not seek to assert any new claims or to conduct extensive additional discovery but rather, in essence, seeks only to continue the challenge to the 2007 Law on causes of action that remain unresolved despite lengthy litigation … . Where, as here, there is no “showing of prejudice resulting from delay in seeking intervention, the motion should not be denied as untimely” … . Jones v Town of Carroll, 2018 NY Slip Op 01010, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (LAND FILL, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LAND FILL, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))/LAND FILL (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))/INTERVENE, MOTION TO  (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 1012, 1013 (MOTION TO INTERVENE, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LAND FILL, NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF CORPORATION’S FAILURE TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PRODUCE A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR DEPOSITION BY DEFENDANT WARRANTED PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY BY THE FORMER EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126, HOWEVER PRECLUSION OF SECONDARY AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ASSERTING ITS CLAIM, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly found that plaintiff corporation did not make sufficient efforts to produce a former employer to be deposed by defendant in this breach of contract action, and therefore properly precluded plaintiff from presenting the former employee’s testimony. However, the Fourth Department held that Supreme Court abused its discretion when it precluded any secondary or hearsay evidence related to the former employee, which would preclude plaintiff from asserting its claim:

​

Generally, where there is no evidence that a corporation exercises control over a former employee, that corporation cannot be held responsible for the former employee’s refusal to appear for a deposition … . Here, however, the firm representing plaintiff undertook the representation of that former employee, implicitly conceding control over the former employee … . When the court ordered plaintiff’s attorney to make every reasonable effort to secure the former employee’s appearance for a deposition, plaintiff’s attorney merely sent a letter notifying the former employee that the attorney was supposed to make additional efforts to secure her presence. There is no evidence that any actual efforts to secure her appearance were made. We thus agree with the court that plaintiff should be precluded from presenting testimony from the former employee.

We conclude, however, that the court abused its discretion in precluding plaintiff from relying on any secondary or hearsay evidence related to the former employee. There was no order compelling the production of such evidence that plaintiff was alleged to have violated, and the court did not find a willful failure to disclose such evidence. Hypercel Corp. v Stampede Presentation Prods., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00936, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PRODUCE A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR DEPOSITION BY DEFENDANT WARRANTED PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY BY THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, HOWEVER PRECLUSION OF SECONDARY AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ASSERTING ITS CLAIM, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE,  PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PRODUCE A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR DEPOSITION BY DEFENDANT WARRANTED PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY BY THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, HOWEVER PRECLUSION OF SECONDARY AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ASSERTING ITS CLAIM, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 3126 EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PRODUCE A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR DEPOSITION BY DEFENDANT WARRANTED PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY BY THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, HOWEVER PRECLUSION OF SECONDARY AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ASSERTING ITS CLAIM, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO PRODUCE A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR DEPOSITION BY DEFENDANT WARRANTED PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY BY THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, HOWEVER PRECLUSION OF SECONDARY AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FORMER EMPLOYEE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ASSERTING ITS CLAIM, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peradotto, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York courts could not exercise jurisdiction over an Ohio gun dealer, Brown, who, in Ohio, sold a handgun to an illegal gun trafficker from New York (Bostic). The handgun was ultimately used in New York to shoot the plaintiff. The Fourth Department, applying a federal due process “minimum contacts” analysis, concluded that to exercise jurisdiction over Brown would violate due process:

​

… CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii) requires an evaluation of whether Brown “expect[ed] or should reasonably [have] expect[ed his] act[s] to have consequences in [New York].” … * * *

​

… [W]e conclude that Brown lacks the minimum contacts with New York that are a prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction over him. Brown’s submissions established that Great Lakes was an Ohio retailer permitted to sell guns within Ohio only and, during the relevant period from 1996 to 2005, it did not maintain a website, had no business telephone listing, did not advertise in New York, and made its retail sales and transfers to customers present in Ohio … . The evidence submitted by plaintiffs in opposition does not tend to establish that Brown “purposefully reach[ed] out beyond’ ” Ohio and into New York … . Brown did not, for example, engage in a purposeful distribution arrangement thereby evincing an effort to serve the market for firearms in New York … .

… Brown’s knowledge that guns sold to Bostic might end up being resold in New York if Bostic’s ostensible plan or hope came to fruition in the future is insufficient to establish the requisite minimum contacts with New York because such circumstances demonstrate, at most, Brown’s awareness of the mere possibility that the guns could be transported to and resold in New York … . Williams v Beemiller, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00939, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, DUE PROCESS, OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))/DUE PROCESS (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, MINIMUM CONTACTS, OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))/MINIMUM CONTACTS  (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))/LONG ARM JURISDICTION (MINIMUM CONTACTS,  OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))/JURISDICTION, LONG ARM OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 302 (LONG ARM JURISDICTION, OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONTINUING BREACHES OF CONTRACT, AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR THE DURATION OF THE DEBT-RIDDEN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, WHICH WAS TERMINATED 25 DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the causes of action for breach of contract, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty should not have been dismissed as time barred. The underlying suit is based on the allegation that defendant insurance broker was on the board of a Workers’ Compensation trust, which plaintiff had joined, and which was $82 million in debt. The Third Department held that the six-year statute of limitations applied to all the (above-described) causes of action and the complaint alleged continuing breaches throughout the period of membership in the trust, which terminated 25 days before the expiration of the statute of limitations (i.e., the six-year period before the suit was brought extended back to March 24, 2008, and the trust was terminated on April 17, 2008):

… [T]he amended complaint alleges continuing contractual obligations on the part of defendant and specifies that the various acts and omissions constituting the breaches occurred “[t]hroughout the entire course of [p]laintiff’s membership in the [t]rust.” Deeming these allegations as true and according them every favorable inference, as we must … , we conclude that defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing that plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is time-barred in its entirety … . …

[P]laintiff’s causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and aiding and abetting fraud are timely insofar as they allege conduct occurring [during the 25 day window]. …

… [W]e disagree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that the entirety of plaintiff’s aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim is governed by a three-year statute of limitations. Because plaintiff does not seek equitable relief, a six-year statute of limitations period applies to a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action if “an allegation of fraud is essential to” such claim … . While a claim of fraud generally requires an affirmative misrepresentation, “fraud may also result from a fiduciary’s failure to disclose material facts when the fiduciary had a duty to disclose and acted with the intent to deceive” … . Krog Corp. v Vanner Group, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00876, Third Dept 2-8-18

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY BASIS FOR IN PERSONAM OR IN REM JURISDICTION BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AN ALBANIAN MONEY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 53 OF THE CPLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an extensive full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York courts did not have jurisdiction to enforce an Albanian judgment. The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here. The court explained the criteria for the enforcement of foreign money judgments under article 53 of the CPLR (Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act), and the applicability of Daimler AG v Bauman, 571 US ___, 134 S Ct 746 (2014) and Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Saad Trading, Contr. & Fin. Servs. Co.m 117 AD3d 609 (1st Dept 2014) to a CPLR article 53 proceeding. The plaintiff did not claim it had any basis for in personam or in rem jurisdiction in New York and relied upon the Abu Dhabi case for the argument such a jurisdictional demonstration was not required:

​

To go beyond Abu Dhabi and hold, as [plaintiff] urges, that no jurisdictional nexus is ever required for a proceeding under article 53, even if the defendant asserts substantive defenses to recognition of the foreign judgment, would be a substantial departure from the prior general understanding of the law. For example, the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law takes the position that the creditor on a foreign country judgment “must establish a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the enforcing court over the judgment debtor or his property” (§ 481, Comment g). AlbaniaBEG Ambient Sh.p.k. v Enel S.p.A., 2018 NY Slip Op 00928, First Dept 2-8-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENTS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY BASIS FOR IN PERSONAM OR IN REM JURISDICTION BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AN ALBANIAN MONEY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 53 OF THE CPLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR  (FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENTS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY BASIS FOR IN PERSONAM OR IN REM JURISDICTION BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AN ALBANIAN MONEY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 53 OF THE CPLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENTS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY BASIS FOR IN PERSONAM OR IN REM JURISDICTION BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AN ALBANIAN MONEY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 53 OF THE CPLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENTS (PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY BASIS FOR IN PERSONAM OR IN REM JURISDICTION BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AN ALBANIAN MONEY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 53 OF THE CPLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENTS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY BASIS FOR IN PERSONAM OR IN REM JURISDICTION BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AN ALBANIAN MONEY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 53 OF THE CPLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR ARTICLE 53  (FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENTS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY BASIS FOR IN PERSONAM OR IN REM JURISDICTION BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AN ALBANIAN MONEY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 53 OF THE CPLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

,

OKAY FOR BANK TO SUBMIT RENEWED POWER OF ATTORNEY IN REPLY PAPERS, POWER OF ATTORNEY SUBMITTED WITH MOTION PAPERS HAD APPARENTLY EXPIRED AND DEFENDANTS RAISED THE ISSUE IN ANSWERING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly considered the submission of a renewed power of attorney in reply papers in this foreclosure proceeding. Apparently the power of attorney submitted with the bank’s motion papers had expired:

​

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly considered a renewed power of attorney submitted by the plaintiff in reply to the appellants’ opposition to its motion. “The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant”… . Here, the renewed power of attorney submitted by the plaintiff was offered in response to the appellants’ argument made in opposition that the plaintiff’s affidavit of merit, signed by the assistant vice president of its servicing agent, was invalid because it was signed after the original power of attorney submitted by the plaintiff had expired. The renewed power of attorney merely clarified that the plaintiff’s servicing agent continued to have the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff at the time the affidavit was signed … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Hoshmand, 2018 NY Slip Op 00818, Second Dept 2-7-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, OKAY FOR BANK TO SUBMIT RENEWED POWER OF ATTORNEY IN REPLY PAPERS, POWER OF ATTORNEY SUBMITTED WITH MOTION PAPERS HAD APPARENTLY EXPIRED AND DEFENDANTS RAISED THE ISSUE IN ANSWERING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, OKAY FOR BANK TO SUBMIT RENEWED POWER OF ATTORNEY IN REPLY PAPERS, POWER OF ATTORNEY SUBMITTED WITH MOTION PAPERS HAD APPARENTLY EXPIRED AND DEFENDANTS RAISED THE ISSUE IN ANSWERING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, REPLY PAPERS, OKAY FOR BANK TO SUBMIT RENEWED POWER OF ATTORNEY IN REPLY PAPERS, POWER OF ATTORNEY SUBMITTED WITH MOTION PAPERS HAD APPARENTLY EXPIRED AND DEFENDANTS RAISED THE ISSUE IN ANSWERING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))

MOTION TO RENEW, BASED UPON A CHANGE IN THE LAW, MADE WHEN THE CASE WAS NO LONGER PENDING, WAS UNTIMELY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the plaintiff’s motion to renew, based upon a change in the law, made when the case was no longer pending, was properly denied as untimely. A case relied upon in deciding the motion had been disavowed by the 2nd Department:

CPLR 2221 (e) does not impose a time limit on motions for leave to renew, unlike motions for leave to reargue, which must be made before the expiration of the time in which to take an appeal … . A motion based on a change in the law formerly was considered a motion for leave to reargue, with the same time limit, i.e., before the time to appeal the order expired … . Over time, the rule evolved to allow such a motion “where the case was still pending, either in the trial court or on appeal” .. . The Ct. of Appeals explained … that denying as untimely a motion for leave to reargue based on a change in the law “might at times seem harsh, [but] there must be an end to lawsuits” … .

After the statute was amended in 1999 to specify that a motion based on a change in the law is a motion for leave to renew, courts have nevertheless properly continued to impose a time limit on motions based on a change in law …  … “[T]here is no indication in the legislative history of an intention to change the rule regarding the finality of judgments” … . Here, the case was no longer pending when plaintiff made his motion for leave to renew based on a change in the law, and we therefore conclude that the motion insofar as it sought leave to renew was untimely … . Redeye v Progressive Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 00763, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW, BASED UPON A CHANGE IN THE LAW, MADE WHEN THE CASE WAS NO LONGER PENDING, WAS UNTIMELY (FOURTH DEPT))/RENEW, MOTION TO (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO RENEW, BASED UPON A CHANGE IN THE LAW, MADE WHEN THE CASE WAS NO LONGER PENDING, WAS UNTIMELY (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 2221  (MOTION TO RENEW, BASED UPON A CHANGE IN THE LAW, MADE WHEN THE CASE WAS NO LONGER PENDING, WAS UNTIMELY (FOURTH DEPT))

GOOD CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING A DISPOSITIVE MOTION CAN NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that it is improper for a court to consider whether there was “good cause” for making an untimely dispositive motion when the “good cause” argument is raised for the first time in the reply papers:

​

Defendants’ summary judgment motion was made 618 days after the deadline set forth in the court’s scheduling order and 204 days after the filing of the note of issue. Defendants did not make the motion in time to be heard on the court’s November 21, 2016 motion calendar. Nonetheless, defendants’ moving papers failed to address the issue of “good cause” required to make a summary judgment motion more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue or after the date established by the court in a scheduling order (CPLR 3212 [a]…). Plaintiffs opposed the motion on the ground that it was untimely. It was only in reply papers that defendants addressed the issue of “good cause.” The court considered the merits of the motion, granted summary judgment to defendants and dismissed the complaint. That was error.

It is well settled that it is improper for a court to consider the “good cause” proffered by a movant if it is presented for the first time in reply papers… . Defendants also failed to move to vacate the note of issue. The motion should thus have been denied as untimely (see CPLR 3212 [a]), and the court should have declined to reach the merits. Mitchell v City of Geneva, 2018 NY Slip Op 00740, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, GOOD CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING A DISPOSITIVE MOTION CAN NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION (FOURTH DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (GOOD CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING A DISPOSITIVE MOTION CAN NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION (FOURTH DEPT))/GOOD CAUSE (GOOD CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING A DISPOSITIVE MOTION CAN NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION (FOURTH DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (GOOD CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING A DISPOSITIVE MOTION CAN NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 3212  (REPLY PAPERS, GOOD CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING A DISPOSITIVE MOTION CAN NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (GOOD CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING A DISPOSITIVE MOTION CAN NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION (FOURTH DEPT)

DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RELIED ON PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, A RARE EXPLANATION OF HOW APPELLATE COURTS ANALYZE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant doctor’s motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. If the action had sounded in battery, it would have been untimely. But the doctor’s papers did not demonstrate the action sounded in battery, as opposed to medical malpractice. Therefore the motion should have been denied without considering plaintiff’s papers, on which defendant relied for the “battery” argument:

​

It is well established that “[a] party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate that the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment’ in the moving party’s favor” … . Thus, “the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” … . “This burden is a heavy one and on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party” … , “and every available inference must be drawn in the [non-moving party’s] favor” … . “The moving party’s [f]ailure to make [a] prima facie showing [of entitlement to summary judgment] requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers’ ” … . Palumbo v Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 00749, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS, DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RELIED ON PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, A RARE EXPLANATION OF HOW APPELLATE COURTS ANALYZE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ANALYSIS OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS, DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RELIED ON PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, A RARE EXPLANATION OF HOW APPELLATE COURTS ANALYZE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS (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