You are here: / Civil Procedure

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO NAME NECESSARY PARTIES, BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES JOINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed causes of action for failure to name necessary parties, but rather should have ordered the parties joined:

​

Supreme Court erred, however, by determining that petitioners’ failure to name Negron, Zell, Lowe, Robertson and Burkert as necessary parties required dismissal of the first three causes of action in the petition/complaint … . CPLR 1001 (b) provides that where a party or parties who should be joined have “not been made a party and [are] subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall order [them] summoned” … . Because Negron, Zell, Lowe, Robertson and Burkert are necessary parties and are subject to Supreme Court’s jurisdiction insofar as they were employees of the City of Kingston Police Department at the time of commencement of this proceeding, the court should have ordered them joined… . Accordingly, we find that this matter must be remitted to Supreme Court to order Negron, Zell, Lowe, Robertson and Burkert to be joined as necessary parties … . Matter of Farrell v City of Kingston, 2017 NY Slip Op 09214, Third Dept 12-28-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NECESSARY PARTIES, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO NAME NECESSARY PARTIES, BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES JOINED (THIRD DEPT))/NECESSARY PARTIES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO NAME NECESSARY PARTIES, BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES JOINED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 1001 (NECESSARY PARTIES, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO NAME NECESSARY PARTIES, BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES JOINED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s separate cause of action for punitive damages should have been dismissed. However, the demand for punitive damages in the ad damnum clause was proper. Plaintiff was a passenger in the car driven by defendant, who was drunk and lost control of the car:

​

The plaintiff erroneously denominated her request for punitive damages as a separate cause of action. “New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages”… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the separately pleaded sixth cause of action insofar as asserted against him.

However, the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages in the ad damnum clause of the complaint was proper. Whereas compensatory damages are intended to assure that the victim receives “fair and just compensation commensurate with the injury sustained,” punitive damages are meant to “punish the tortfeasor and to deter this wrongdoer and others similarly situated from indulging in the same conduct in the future” … . With regard to the availability of punitive damages in personal injury cases involving drunk drivers, while this Court has held that “[e]vidence that a defendant was driving while intoxicated is insufficient by itself to justify the imposition of punitive damages”… , this Court has also held that “driving while intoxicated may support an award for punitive damages where there is additional evidence that the defendant engaged in wanton and reckless’ conduct evincing heedlessness and an utter disregard for the safety of others”… . Indeed, punitive damages were properly imposed where the driver was excessively drunk …  or was a repeat offender… . Accordingly, a request for punitive damages can be stated in a case arising from drinking and driving. Furthermore, at this stage it would be premature to conclude that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to support a claim that the defendant acted so recklessly or wantonly as to warrant an award of punitive damages … Thus, to the extent the plaintiff sought punitive damages in her ad damnum clause, she stated a request for such damages, and that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss that request for punitive damages insofar as asserted against him was properly denied … . Gershman v Ahmad, 2017 NY Slip Op 09117, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DAMAGES, DRUNK DRIVING, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (DRUNK DRIVING, NEGLIGENCE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (NEGLIGENCE, DRUNK DRIVING, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (DRUNK DRIVING, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (NEGLIGENCE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, explained an aspect of the rigid proof requirements for summary judgment. Here plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment in a foreclosure action. Defendant, in opposition, raised plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate compliance with a condition precedent in the note. Plaintiff submitted reply papers with proof the condition precedent had been met. The Second Department determined the reply could not be considered and therefore the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case in its papers:

​

As part of her affirmative defenses and counterclaim, the defendant asserted, inter alia, that the plaintiff l… failed to show that it complied with the condition precedent contained in paragraph 7, subsection C, of the note. * * *

​

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in paragraph 7, subsection C, of the note…  “[A] party moving for summary judgment cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply, and generally, evidence submitted for the first time in reply papers should be disregarded by the court”… . Here, since the defendant raised the issue of compliance with paragraph 7, subsection C, of the note in her affirmative defenses and counterclaim, the plaintiff’s submission for the first time of a copy of the requisite default notice with its reply to the defendant’s opposition to the summary judgment motion was not sufficient to establish its prima facie compliance … . Since the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden on the motion, we need not consider the sufficiency of the defendant’s opposition papers … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Osias, 2017 NY Slip Op 09195, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, EVIDENCE, N MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT TRIAL, A DEFENDANT BRINGING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, GAPS IN DEFENDANT’S PROOF REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied in this fraudulent conveyance action. The court offered a particularly clear description of how summary judgment motions are analyzed by the appellate courts. Although plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial, a defendant bringing a motion for summary judgment bears the burden of proof. Gaps in a defendant’s proof require that the motion be denied, without considering the plaintiff’s opposing papers. Therefore a defendant cannot point to gaps in the plaintiff’s proof as a ground for summary judgment in favor of defendant:

​

It is the movant’s burden on a motion for summary judgment to “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”… . Only if the movant succeeds in meeting its burden will the burden shift to the opponent to demonstrate through evidence in admissible form that there exists a triable issue of fact. While the ultimate burden of proof at trial will be borne by the plaintiff, a defendant seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidentiary proof in admissible form … . On a summary judgment motion by a defendant, the defendant does not meet its initial burden by merely pointing to gaps in the plaintiff’s case; rather, it must affirmatively demonstrate the merit of its claim or defense… . Vumbico v Estate of Rose H. Wiltse, 2017 NY Slip Op 09194, Second Dept 12-27-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT TRIAL, A DEFENDANT BRINGING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, GAPS IN DEFENDANT’S PROOF REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT TRIAL, A DEFENDANT BRINGING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, GAPS IN DEFENDANT’S PROOF REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT TRIAL, A DEFENDANT BRINGING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, GAPS IN DEFENDANT’S PROOF REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action should have been brought as an Article 78 proceeding and was properly dismissed as untimely. The action concerned alleged violations of height restrictions on new construction which had been the subject of a final environmental impact statement (FEIS):

An action for a declaratory judgment is generally governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[1]). However, where a declaratory judgment action involves claims that could have been made in another proceeding for which a specific limitation period is provided, the action is subject to the shorter limitations period … . Where an action could have been brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, the four-month statute of limitations applicable to such proceedings applies … .

A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 may be brought to review a determination of a public body or officer which is “final and binding upon the petitioner” (CPLR 217[1]; see CPLR 7801[1]). There are two requirements for fixing the time when agency action is final and binding upon the petitioner: “First, the agency must have reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury and second, the injury inflicted may not be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party” … . A determination is final and the statute of limitations begins to run when the agency’s “definitive position on the issue [becomes] readily ascertainable” to the complaining party … , so that the petitioner knew or should have known that it was aggrieved… .

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that this action could have been brought as a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 … . Save The View Now v Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 09189, Second Dept 12-27-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT  (ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/ARTICLE 78 (ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS , ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW  (ARTICLE 78 VERSUS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff did not strictly comply with the requirements for service of process on defendant unauthorized foreign limited liability company. Plaintiff had been granted a default judgment dismissing the foreclosure proceeding as time-barred. Defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment was denied. The Fourth Department dismissed the complaint (without prejudice) finding that the flaws in service deprived the court of jurisdiction:

Pursuant to [Limited Liability Company law 304], “[f]irst, service upon the unauthorized foreign limited liability company may be made by personal delivery of the summons and complaint, with the appropriate fee, to the Secretary of State … . That was done by plaintiff in this case. “Second, in order for the personal delivery to the Secretary of State to be sufficient,’ the plaintiff must also give the defendant direct notice of its delivery of the process to the Secretary of State, along with a copy of the process” … . The direct notice may be given to the defendant personally… . That was attempted by plaintiff, but the process server was unable to make personal service inasmuch as the property was “unoccupied.” In the alternative, “[t]he direct notice may be sent to the defendant by registered mail, return receipt requested”… . That was attempted by plaintiff in this case, but the mail was returned to plaintiff as undeliverable. …

… [P]laintiff failed to comply with step two of Limited Liability Company Law § 304. …  Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to comply with step two, she necessarily also failed to comply with step three, which would show that a party complied with the service requirements of section 304. Initially, we note that plaintiff filed an affidavit of service showing personal service upon the Secretary of State and a notation that service was made upon defendant by registered mail, return receipt requested, but she did not file an affidavit of compliance… . Moreover, because plaintiff did not comply with step two, she was unable to file a return receipt signed by defendant “or other official proof of delivery” … . Purportedly attached to the affidavit of service filed by plaintiff was a copy of the envelope mailed to defendant by registered mail and returned to plaintiff as undeliverable. Rather than showing proof of delivery, plaintiff showed just the opposite, i.e., that the process was not delivered to defendant. We therefore conclude that the motion to vacate the default judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction should have been granted… . Chan v Onyx Capital, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08966, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SERVICE OF PROCESS, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (SERVICE OF PROCESS, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW,  PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

TENANT DID NOT COUNTERCLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, TENANT’S BRINGING A PLENARY ACTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING THE EVICTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CLAIM SPLITTING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice DeMoyer, refusing to follow the 1st Department, determined the tenant, who was a defendant in a failed eviction action, had the right to bring a plenary action to recover attorney’s fees without violating the prohibition against claim splitting. It is significant that the tenant did not counterclaim for attorney’s fees in the answer to the eviction action. The fact that the answer included a boilerplate request for attorney’s fees in the wherefore clause did not amount to a counterclaim (which is authorized by Real Property Law § 234:

Applying the traditional understanding of the claim splitting rule discussed above and embodied in the landlord-tenant case law, the landlord’s bid for dismissal on claim splitting grounds must fail. It was the landlord, not the tenant, who instituted the two prior proceedings in Village Court. The tenant successfully defended herself against the landlord’s claims, but she did not assert an affirmative claim until the instant plenary action. Indeed, the landlord’s appellate brief explicitly concedes that the tenant did not interpose a Real Property Law § 234 counterclaim for attorneys’ fees in either of the two prior proceedings. Thus, because the instant action is the tenant’s first assertion of an affirmative claim for relief under section 234, the claim splitting rule poses no bar to her recovery. Put simply, the tenant cannot be guilty of claim splitting because, until the instant action, there was no claim to split. Caracaus v Conifer Cent. Sq. Assoc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08946, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CLAIM SPLITTING, TENANT DID NOT COUNTERCLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, TENANT’S BRINGING A PLENARY ACTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING THE EVICTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CLAIM SPLITTING (FOURTH DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (EVICTION, ATTORNEY’S FEES, TENANT DID NOT COUNTERCLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, TENANT’S BRINGING A PLENARY ACTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING THE EVICTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CLAIM SPLITTING (FOURTH DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, ATTORNEY’S FEES, TENANT DID NOT COUNTERCLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, TENANT’S BRINGING A PLENARY ACTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING THE EVICTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CLAIM SPLITTING (FOURTH DEPT))/CLAIM SPLITTING  (LANDLORD-TENANT, ATTORNEY’S FEES, TENANT DID NOT COUNTERCLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, TENANT’S BRINGING A PLENARY ACTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING THE EVICTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CLAIM SPLITTING (FOURTH DEPT))

AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE WALTER WITKOWSKI JR AT THE ADDRESS OF WALTER WITKOWSKI SR DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF INTENDED TO SERVE JUNIOR, SERVICE UPON JUNIOR WITHIN THE 120 DAY SERVICE PERIOD, BUT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice DeMoyer, reversing Supreme Court, determined Walter Witkowski, Jr., not Walter Witkowski, Sr., was the party plaintiff intended to serve in this traffic accident case. An attempt to serve was made at senior’s house within the statute of limitations. Before the expiration of the 120 day service period, but after the expiration of the statute of limitations, junior was served at the correct address:

​

CPLR 306-b requires service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant—i.e., Junior and only Junior—”within [120] days after the commencement of the action.” And that is precisely what occurred here. Junior freely concedes that he was served with the summons and complaint in November 2013, well within the statutory deadline for effecting service (which would have expired in February 2014). Moreover, there is no dispute that the November 2013 service constituted good and valid service under CPLR 308 (2). Junior—the only defendant in the case—was thus properly served … .

True, it took plaintiff two separate tries to properly serve Junior. As noted above, plaintiff’s first attempt at serving Junior in October 2013 was admittedly defective under CPLR 308 (2) because the commencement papers were delivered to an address where Junior did not reside (i.e., Senior’s house). But this is inconsequential. Plaintiff cured his defective service by effecting unquestionably proper service within 120 days of commencement, and it is black letter law that “plaintiff had the absolute statutory right to effect valid service at any point within the 120-day period [afforded by CPLR 306-b]” … .Service, after all, is not a “one strike and you’re out” game. Martin v Witkowski, 2017 NY Slip Op 09014, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE WALTER WITKOWSKI JR AT THE ADDRESS OF WALTER WITKOWSKI SR DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF INTENDED TO SERVE JUNIOR, SERVICE UPON JUNIOR WITHIN THE 120 DAY SERVICE PERIOD, BUT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS (AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE WALTER WITKOWSKI JR AT THE ADDRESS OF WALTER WITKOWSKI SR DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF INTENDED TO SERVE JUNIOR, SERVICE UPON JUNIOR WITHIN THE 120 DAY SERVICE PERIOD, BUT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT))/NAMES (SERVICE OF PROCESS, FATHER SON WITH SAME NAME, AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE WALTER WITKOWSKI JR AT THE ADDRESS OF WALTER WITKOWSKI SR DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF INTENDED TO SERVE JUNIOR, SERVICE UPON JUNIOR WITHIN THE 120 DAY SERVICE PERIOD, BUT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 306-b  (AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE WALTER WITKOWSKI JR AT THE ADDRESS OF WALTER WITKOWSKI SR DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF INTENDED TO SERVE JUNIOR, SERVICE UPON JUNIOR WITHIN THE 120 DAY SERVICE PERIOD, BUT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT))

MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CLAIM PROPERLY ALLEGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint should have been granted. The underlying claim is the defendant’s alleged violation of a non-export agreement in which defendant agreed not to resell a car (purchased from plaintiff) for export to another country. Upon discovery it was learned that defendant was essentially buying cars on behalf of an outfit (Superior) which exported them. Plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add Superior as a defendant and to add causes of action for civil conspiracy, breach of contract and tortious interference with contract. The Fourth Department explained the analytical criteria for motions to amend a complaint, as well as the necessary allegations for civil conspiracy (which, standing alone, is not a recognized tort in New York):

​

“Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where the amendment is not patently lacking in merit” …  Although defendant contends that plaintiff was required to ” make an evidentiary showing that the claim[s] [could] be supported’ “… , or to submit an affidavit of merit … , plaintiff correctly relies on the more recent cases from this Court, which provide that “[a] court should not examine the merits or legal sufficiency of the proposed amendment unless the proposed pleading is clearly and patently insufficient on its face” … . …

​

 In denying that part of the motion seeking leave to amend the complaint, the court concluded that plaintiff could not demonstrate any actual damages as a result of the breach of the Nonexport Agreement. We agree with plaintiff that the court improperly decided the merits of a disputed issue of fact in the context of a motion seeking leave to amend the complaint … . …

​

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the proposed causes of action for civil conspiracy and tortious interference with a contract are not patently lacking in merit. Although “New York does not recognize civil conspiracy to commit a tort as an independent cause of action” … , such a “claim” or “cause of action” may be asserted where, as here, there are allegations of a ” primary tort, plus the following four elements: (1) an agreement between two or more parties; (2) an overt act in furtherance of the agreement; (3) the parties’ intentional participation in the furtherance of a plan or purpose; and (4) resulting damage or injury’ ” …  Here, plaintiff alleged a primary tort of tortious interference with a contract … , and the allegations supporting that tort as well as the cause of action for civil conspiracy are not “palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . Great Lakes Motor Corp. v Johnson, 2017 NY Slip Op 08970, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CLAIM PROPERLY ALLEGED (FOURTH DEPT))/COMPLAINT, MOTION TO AMEND (MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CLAIM PROPERLY ALLEGED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL CONSPIRACY  (MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CLAIM PROPERLY ALLEGED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DISCOVERY OF THE COMPLETE DATABASE SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TYPE OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS APPROPRIATE, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER PRECLUDED BY DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR WHICH PREJUDICED CODEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant Enerco was entitled to discovery of information demonstrating the retail distribution of the type of clothes distributed by defendant Star of India which had caught fire from a heater manufactured or distributed by defendant Enerco. The court held that Enerco did not have to rely on a printout created by Star of India purporting to demonstrate Star of India did not distribute the clothes in question. The court also held that Enerco’s motion to amend its answer was properly denied. There was evidence Enerco had led parties to believe it was not going to assert the cross-claims it sought to include in the amended answer, thereby limiting questioning during a deposition:

​

… [T]he Enerco defendants do not rely on mere speculation for their discovery demand. Based upon this, together with the fact that the search results are entirely dependent upon the search terms that are used and that [the party] was unable to explain how the results she relied upon were generated, we find that the complete contents of the database from 2004 to 2009 “may be fairly characterized as useful and reasonable” … .Furthermore, our review of the record does not suggest that disclosure of the contents of the database for this specific period would be unnecessarily onerous or impose any special burden on Star of India … . …

​

The Enerco defendants asserted that their 2½-year delay in moving for leave to amend their answer was due to the fact that they were operating ‘under the incorrect assumption that they had asserted cross claims against every co-defendant.’ This proffered excuse, however, is belied by the affidavit of Amy Weissman, an attorney for one of the codefendants. The Weissman affidavit makes clear that the Enerco defendants induced the other defense attorneys in the second action not to ask questions at the deposition of the Enerco defendants’ witnesses based on the explicit representation by counsel for the Enerco defendants that they had no cross claims against those codefendants. Thus, we view the proffered excuse to be disingenuous.

… These defendants have relied upon the Enerco defendants’ representation to their prejudice by forgoing questioning of the Enerco defendants’ witnesses, and they have been hindered in the preparation of their case … . Palmatier v Mr. Heater Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 08918, Third Dept 12-21-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER, DISCOVERY OF THE COMPLETE DATABASE SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TYPE OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS APPROPRIATE, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER PRECLUDED BY DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR WHICH PREJUDICED CODEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/DISCOVERY (DISCOVERY OF THE COMPLETE DATABASE SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TYPE OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS APPROPRIATE, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER PRECLUDED BY DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR WHICH PREJUDICED CODEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/ANSWER (MOTION TO AMEND,  DISCOVERY OF THE COMPLETE DATABASE SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TYPE OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS APPROPRIATE, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER PRECLUDED BY DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR WHICH PREJUDICED CODEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR WHICH PREJUDICED CODEFENDANTS PRECLUDED AMENDMENT OF ANSWER (THIRD 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