You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

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))

,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF THE APPROPRIATE DISCOUNT RATE TO BE APPLIED TO A JURY VERDICT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a case sent back by the Court of Appeals for a determination of the appropriate discount rate on a jury verdict in a breach of contract action, held the plaintiff’s request for a jury trial on the issue should have been granted:

​

… [I]t is undisputed that, prior to the original trial in this matter, plaintiff demanded a jury trial on all issues. During that trial, “[o]ver the [plaintiff’s] objection, the jury was provided with a verdict form that did not allow for any damages discount” … . Although the Court of Appeals remitted the matter for the purpose of establishing a discount rate, it did not indicate whether the discount rate should be determined by the trial court or a jury. Nevertheless, prior to the trial that is the subject of this appeal, plaintiff renewed its request for a jury, which the court denied. Contrary to defendant’s contention, neither article 50-A nor article 50-B of the CPLR requires that the discount rate be determined by the court. As the Court of Appeals stated, this is a breach of contract action… . Article 50-A deals with periodic payment of judgments in actions concerning medical and dental malpractice, and article 50-B deals with periodic payment of judgments in actions concerning personal injury, injury to property, and wrongful death. Furthermore, we conclude that Toledo v Iglesia Ni Christo (18 NY3d 363 [2012]) does not require the trial court to determine the discount rate in this case inasmuch as Toledo was a wrongful death case within the purview of CPLR article 50-B. Village of Herkimer v County of Herkimer, 2018 NY Slip Op 00756, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JURY TRIAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF THE APPROPRIATE DISCOUNT RATE TO BE APPLIED TO A JURY VERDICT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/DAMAGES (JURY TRIAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF THE APPROPRIATE DISCOUNT RATE TO BE APPLIED TO A JURY VERDICT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/DISCOUNT RATE (DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF THE APPROPRIATE DISCOUNT RATE TO BE APPLIED TO A JURY VERDICT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY TRIAL (BREACH OF CONTRACT, DISCOUNT RATE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF THE APPROPRIATE DISCOUNT RATE TO BE APPLIED TO A JURY VERDICT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (DAMAGES, JURY TRIAL, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF THE APPROPRIATE DISCOUNT RATE TO BE APPLIED TO A JURY VERDICT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CASE WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF TAX RETURNS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED AT THE TIME OF MOTHER’S DEATH, IF SO, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this wrongful death case were entitled to discovery of tax returns to determine whether the parents of the plaintiff-children were married. If the parents were married when mother died, the statute of limitations had passed:

​

Individual tax returns are generally not discoverable unless the movant makes a ” requisite showing that [the] tax returns [are] indispensable to [the] litigation and that [the] relevant information possibly contained therein [is] unavailable from other sources’ ” … . A wrongful death action has a two-year statute of limitations from the date of the decedent’s death…  Where the sole distributee is an infant, the statute is tolled “until appointment of a guardian or the majority of the sole distributee, whichever is earlier”… . Where, however, the decedent is married and the surviving spouse is thus a distributee of the estate, the infancy toll does not apply because the spouse “was available both to seek appointment as the personal representative of the estate and to commence an action on behalf of the children in a timely fashion” … . Has K’Paw Mu v Lyon, 2018 NY Slip Op 00687, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, TAX RETURNS, DEFENDANTS IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CASE WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TAX RETURNS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED AT THE TIME OF MOTHER’S DEATH, IF SO, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED (FOURTH DEPT))/DISCOVERY (TAX RETURNS, DEFENDANTS IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CASE WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TAX RETURNS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED AT THE TIME OF MOTHER’S DEATH, IF SO, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED (FOURTH DEPT))/TAX RETURNS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISCOVERY, DEFENDANTS IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CASE WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TAX RETURNS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED AT THE TIME OF MOTHER’S DEATH, IF SO, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED (FOURTH DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (WRONGFUL DEATH, DISCOVERY, TAX RETURNS, DEFENDANTS IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CASE WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TAX RETURNS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED AT THE TIME OF MOTHER’S DEATH, IF SO, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED (FOURTH DEPT))/WRONGFUL DEATH  (DISCOVERY, TAX RETURNS, DEFENDANTS IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CASE WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TAX RETURNS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED AT THE TIME OF MOTHER’S DEATH, IF SO, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (WRONGFUL DEATH, DISCOVERY, TAX RETURNS, DEFENDANTS IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CASE WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY TAX RETURNS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED AT THE TIME OF MOTHER’S DEATH, IF SO, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUING COURT DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN SATISFIED BY A PROPERTY EXECUTION, IF DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant did have standing to move to vacate a default judgment on the ground that the court which issued the judgment did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The judgment had been satisfied by a property execution on the defendant’s bank account:

​

Where, as here, a defendant moves to vacate a default judgment on the ground that the court that rendered the judgment lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant … a finding in favor of the defendant would mean that the judgment was “a nullity” . It necessarily follows that, “if a judgment is a nullity, it never legally existed so as to become extinguished by payment” … . …

​

In addition, inasmuch as plaintiff levied the judgment amount with interest by a property execution on defendant’s bank account, we conclude that defendant did not voluntarily pay and satisfy the judgment … . Thus, it cannot be said that she waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction … . Cach, LLC v Ryan, 2018 NY Slip Op 00755, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUING COURT DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN SATISFIED BY A PROPERTY EXECUTION, IF DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUING COURT DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN SATISFIED BY A PROPERTY EXECUTION, IF DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (PERSONAL JURISDICTION, (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUING COURT DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN SATISFIED BY A PROPERTY EXECUTION, IF DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE A NULLITY (FOURTH DEPT))/PERSONAL JURISDICTION (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUING COURT DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN SATISFIED BY A PROPERTY EXECUTION, IF DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE A NULLITY (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