You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

WHERE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE BY A COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE, RESTORATION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR IS AUTOMATIC WHERE NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED AND THERE HAD BEEN NO COURT-ORDERED DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted. Although plaintiff had failed to file a note of issue by the court-ordered deadline, no 90-day notice had been served nor had the court ordered dismissal of the action:

“When a plaintiff has failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic, unless either a 90-day notice has been served pursuant to CPLR 3216 or there has been an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27” … . “In the absence of those two circumstances, the court need not consider whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file a note of issue” … . Adams v Frankel, 2025 NY Slip Op 00939, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Where plaintiff fails to fails to file a note of issue by the court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic where no 90-day notice has been served and dismissal has not been ordered by the court.

 

, , , ,

A MUNICIPALITY OWES A CHILD IT PLACES IN FOSTER CARE A SPECIAL DUTY SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR A NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT WHICH LEADS TO FORESEEABLE HARM TO THE CHILD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined a municipality owes a child placed in foster care a special duty, such that the municipality, although performing a governmental function, can be liable for negligent placement of a child:

Today we hold that municipalities owe a duty of care to the children the municipalities place in foster homes because the municipalities have assumed custody of those children. As a result, we reverse the decision of the Appellate Division.

Plaintiff, formerly a child in foster care, commenced this action pursuant to the Child Victims Act (see CPLR 214-g) against defendant Cayuga County and “Does 1-10,” who she alleged were “persons or entities with responsibilities for [p]laintiff’s safety, supervision and/or placement in foster care.” According to the complaint, the County placed plaintiff in foster care in 1974, when she was three months old. While in the foster home selected by the County, plaintiff allegedly suffered horrific abuse. Plaintiff alleged that her foster parent sexually abused her over the course of approximately seven years, beginning when she was 18 months old and continuing until she was eight years old. The foster parent allegedly coerced plaintiff’s compliance with the sexual abuse by inflicting severe physical abuse, resulting in plaintiff sustaining broken bones and a head wound. * * *

By assuming legal custody over the foster child, the applicable government official steps in as the sole legal authority responsible for determining who has daily control over the child’s life … . We thus hold that a municipality owes a duty to a foster child over whom it has assumed legal custody to guard the child from “foreseeable risks of harm” arising from the child’s placement with the municipality’s choice of foster parent … . Weisbrod-Moore v Cayuga County, 2025 NY Slip Op 00903, CtApp 2-18-25

Practice Point: A municipality generally is not liable for injury resulting from the exercise of a governmental function absent a special duty owed to the injured party. Resolving a split of authority, here the Court of Appeals held a municipality owes a special duty to a child it places in foster care.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS IMPROPERLY BROUGHT AS AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND PETITION, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED BY DEEMING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE A SUMMONS AND THE PETITION A COMPLAINT; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the action should not have been dismissed because it was in the form of a proceeding rather than an action. Supreme Court should have converted the proceeding into the proper form:

The petitioner commenced this purported proceeding by the filing of an order to show cause and a petition, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for medical malpractice. In opposition to the order to show cause and the petition, the respondent submitted an affirmation of counsel, in which counsel argued, among other things, that the proceeding should be dismissed because it was not brought in the proper form. The Supreme Court conducted a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, the court issued a judgment, in effect, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

Although this matter was improperly commenced in the form of a proceeding instead of an action, dismissal is not required. “Pursuant to CPLR 103(c), a proceeding should not be dismissed ‘solely because it is not brought in the proper form,’ and the court has the power to convert a proceeding into the proper form” … . Accordingly, we convert this proceeding into an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for medical malpractice, with the order to show cause deemed to be the summons and the petition deemed to be the complaint (see CPLR 103[c] …), and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to afford the respondent an opportunity to serve and file an answer within 20 days of service upon it of this decision and order with notice of entry … . Matter of Robinson v NYU Langone Hosps., 2025 NY Slip Op 00870, Second Dept 2-13-25

Practice Point: A proceeding brought in the wrong form can be converted to the proper form by the court pursuant to CPLR 103 (c).

 

, , , ,

THE 2024 AMENDMENTS WHICH SET A STANDARD FOR DETERMINING CLAIMS ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE A RENT-STABILIZED APARTMENT APPLY TO CLAIMS PENDING AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT AND ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Connolly, determined the 2024 amendments (the “chapter amendments”), which set forth a standard for determining claims alleging a fraudulent scheme to deregulate a rent-stabilized apartment, applied retroactively to claims pending when the amendments were enacted and are constitutional:

First, we must determine whether so much of the chapter amendments as set forth the standard for determining a fraudulent scheme to deregulate a rent-stabilized apartment unit applies to actions such as this one, which were commenced before the effective date of the chapter amendments but were pending before a court on the effective date. We hold that it does.

Next, we must determine whether the defendant established that so much of the chapter amendments as set forth the standard for determining a fraudulent scheme to deregulate an apartment unit is unconstitutional on its face or whether it would be unconstitutional to apply that portion of the chapter amendments to this action. We hold that the defendant did not establish that the relevant portion of the chapter amendments is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied in this action.

Finally, applying the standard set forth in the chapter amendments, we must determine whether the plaintiffs met their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the defendant engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the subject apartment units such that the formula set forth in Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) §§ 2522.6(b)(3) and 2526.1(g) (hereinafter the default formula) should be used to calculate the legal regulated rent and any rent overcharges. We hold that the plaintiffs did not meet their prima facie burden. Gomes v Vermyck, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00849, Second Dept 2-13-25

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PLED AS “CONVERSION” AND “UNJUST ENRICHMENT,” THEY STEMMED FROM ALLEGED BREACHES OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT; THEREFORE THE SIX-YEAR BREACH-OF-CONTRACT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED, NOT THE THREE-YEAR TORT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined that, although the causes of action were couched as “conversion” and “unjust enrichment,” they stemmed from the alleged breach of a partnership agreement. Therefore the six-year contract, not the three-year tort, statute of limitations applied:

… [T]he causes of action were subject to a six-year statute of limitations rather than a three-year statute of limitations. “In determining which limitations period is applicable to a given cause of action, the court must look to the substance of the allegations rather than to the characterization of those allegations by the parties” … . “[W]hen damage to property or pecuniary interests is involved, the six-year statute governs regardless of how the theory of liability is described, as long as the asserted liability had its genesis in the contractual relationship of the parties” … . Thus, “where liability is premised on a contractual relationship, the six-year statute of limitations applies” … . Fernandes v Fernandes, 2025 NY Slip Op 00848, Second Dept 2-13-25

Practice Point: Here the causes of action for conversion and unjust enrichment stemmed from alleged breaches of the partnership agreement, so the breach-of-contract, not the tort, statute of limitations applied.

 

, , , ,

IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS STATUS AS A DEFENDANT IN A PENDING LAWSUIT WARRANTED GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial, determined plaintiff was improperly cross-examined about his status as a defendant in a pending lawsuit:

… Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial based upon improper cross-examination of the plaintiff about a pending lawsuit against him relating to his alleged failure to pay for an unrelated medical procedure. Where a lawsuit has not resulted in an adverse finding against a witness, counsel should not be permitted to ask the witness if he or she has been sued since the fact that a lawsuit has been commenced, in and of itself, has little or no probative value with regard to credibility … . Here, the court improvidently permitted defense counsel to cross-examine the plaintiff as to whether he was the defendant in a pending lawsuit alleging nonpayment, since the lawsuit had not resulted in an adverse finding against the plaintiff and the fact that the lawsuit had been commenced, in and of itself, had little to no probative value with regard to the plaintiff’s credibility … . Moreover, defense counsel’s reference to an allegation that the plaintiff had taken $200,000 in insurance proceeds that was not forwarded to medical providers and, after being precluded from ascertaining from the plaintiff whether that allegation was true, defense counsel’s reference to “someone” taking $250,000 that “didn’t belong to them,” prejudiced the plaintiff, who was the sole eyewitness on his behalf. Drayton v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 00845, Second Dept 2-13-25

Practice Point: The cross-examination of the plaintiff about his status as a defendant a pending lawsuit was improper and warranted a mistrial.

 

, , ,

HERE THE PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS WERE ENTITLED TO A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION WHICH TOLLS THE CURE PERIOD UNTIL A COURT DETERMINES WHETHER THE TENANT HAS ACTUALLY DEFAULTED; PURPOSES OF AND CRITERIA FOR A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION CLEARLY EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and granted plaintiff’s a “Yellowstone” injunction to allow time for a court to determine the nature and status of an ambiguous lease. Supreme Court had erroneously struck the “temporary restraining order” paragraph in plaintiffs-tenants’ order to show cause, which allowed the period to cure the alleged defaults to run out resulting in termination of the lease. The opinion includes a clear explanation of the nature and equitable purpose of a Yellowstone injunction, which is applicable to commercial leases. One of the issue here was whether the lease was commercial or residential:

A Yellowstone injunction “maintains the status quo so that a commercial tenant, when confronted by a threat of termination of its lease, may protect its investment in the leasehold by obtaining a stay tolling the cure period so that upon an adverse determination on the merits the tenant may cure the default and avoid a forfeiture” … .

… [T]he Yellowstone injunction tolls the relevant cure period, thereby preventing the termination of the lease … . With the Yellowstone injunction in place, the tenant can litigate with some confidence: if the tenant prevails in the underlying dispute with the landlord, the tenant walks away from the litigation with the lease intact; if the tenant loses the underlying dispute, the tenant can cure the demonstrated lease defaults before the expiration of the remaining cure period … .

* * * Yellowstone relief is a unique injunction. Unlike a standard preliminary injunction that can be granted only upon a demanding three-part showing of a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, and that the equities favor the party seeking the preliminary injunction, a Yellowstone injunction is granted on “far less” a showing … .

The party seeking Yellowstone relief must demonstrate the following four elements: “(1) It holds a commercial lease; (2) it received from the landlord either a notice of default, a notice to cure, or a threat of termination of the lease; (3) it requested injunctive relief prior to the termination of the lease; and (4) it is prepared and maintains the ability to cure the alleged default by any means short of vacating the premises” … . Wharton-Bickley v 388 Broadway Owners LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00802, First Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the purposes of and the criteria for a Yellowstone injunction.

 

, ,

PETITIONER, WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD, DID NOT HAVE STANDING BY EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL TO SEEK CUSTODY OR VISITATION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined petitioner, who is not related to the child, did not have standing by equitable estoppel to seek custody of or visitation with the child. The evidence did not demonstrate the relationship between petitioner and the child rose to the level of parenthood:

While the record contains evidence suggesting that petitioner and the child had an ongoing relationship throughout the child’s formative years, the record does not support the idea that disrupting such a relationship would be harmful to the child’s best interests. Petitioner never lived with the child or assumed any financial responsibilities for her. Although petitioner credibly testified that the child visited her frequently during the first three years of the child’s life, there was no evidence that petitioner consistently cared for the child or that the child looked upon petitioner as a parental figure.

… [T]here was evidence that the child did not recognize or view petitioner as parental figure … . From the child’s perspective, the only other parent she knew, aside from respondent, the child’s biological mother, was the mother’s companion, whom she regarded as her father and with whom she reported having a close, bonded relationship with, undercutting petitioner’s equitable estoppel claim … . Matter of April B. v Relisha H., 2025 NY Slip Op 00782, First Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: To demonstrate standing to bring a custody petition by equitable estoppel, the petitioner must demonstrate a relationship with the child which rises to the level of parenthood, not the case here.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW ARGUMENT RAISED FIRST IN REPLY; THE HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT OVER THE PARKING LOT, NOT THE OWNER OF THE PARKING LOT, IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE LOT FREE OF ICE AND SNOW, NOTWITHSTANDING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EASEMENT HOLDER AND THE OWNER IN WHICH THE OWNER AGREED TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined (1) Supreme Court should not have considered a new argument raised for the first time in reply, and (2) defendant, as the holder of an easement over the parking lot, was primarily responsible for keeping the lot free of ice and snow, notwithstanding the terms of a “parking agreement” between defendant and the owner of the lot in which the owner agreed to remove ice and snow from the lot:

… [T]he court improperly granted the motion based on an argument advanced for the first time in reply [i.e., the existence of the “parking agreement”]. The function of reply papers is “to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant and not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments in support of, or new grounds [or evidence] for the motion” … . * * *

We agree with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that the duty of an easement holder “is the same as that owed by a landowner” and is nondelegable (Sutera v Go Jokir, Inc., 86 F3d 298, 308 [2d Cir 1996] …). We therefore conclude that defendant’s “duty to exercise reasonable care toward third parties making use of the parking lot subject to the easement, once established, is not abrogated by a covenant on the part of the servient owner[, i.e., the nonparty owner of 875 East Main Street,] to clear ice and snow from the lot. The general rule that a servient owner may assume duties of maintenance, while undoubtedly relevant as between dominant and servient owners, does not apply when the rights of injured third parties are implicated,” as in the case here … . The fact that the nonparty owner of 875 East Main Street may also have had a duty to maintain the parking lot does not serve to insulate defendant from liability to plaintiff. Otero v Rochester Broadway Theatre League, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00769, Fourth Dept 2-7-25

Practice Point: An argument based on new evidence first presented in reply should not have been considered by the court.​

Practice Point: Here the holder of the easement over the parking lot, as opposed to the owner of the parking lot, was primarily responsible for the removal of ice and snow.

 

 

, ,

THE FORECLOSURE ACTION BROUGHT IN 2011 WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THEREFORE THE 2011 ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE NEVER STARTED RUNNING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage was never validly accelerated when the foreclosure proceeding was brought in 2011. The 2011 action was dismissed because the notice of default was not served in accordance with the mortgage agreement (a condition precedent to foreclosure). Because the debt was never accelerated in 2011, the statute of limitations never started running and plaintiffs’ action to cancel and discharge the mortgage (RPAPL 1501 (4)) should not have been granted:

… [T]he defendants established … that the acceleration of the debt alleged in the complaint was a nullity due to the Supreme Court’s determination … that GMAC failed to establish … proper mailing of the notice of default, a contractual condition precedent to acceleration of the debt. Accordingly, the statute of limitations to foreclose the mortgage never accrued … . …

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, CPLR 213(4)(b), as amended by the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act …, … does not preclude the defendants from asserting that the statute of limitations for an action to foreclose the mortgage has not expired. … [T]he defendants demonstrated that the statute of limitations had not previously accrued because the 2011 action was dismissed upon an expressed judicial determination made upon a timely interposed defense that the notice of default was not mailed in accordance with the terms of the mortgage agreement … . Nichols v U.S. Bank, 2025 NY Slip Op 00665, Second Dept 2-5-25

Practice Point: If a foreclosure action is dismissed because the bank did not comply with the notice of default provisions in the mortgage agreement, a condition precedent to foreclosure, the debt was never accelerated and the foreclosure statute of limitations never started running.

 

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