You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALLY, DEFECTS IN SERVICE PROPERLY OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiffs’ service of process on defendant was flawed but Supreme Court properly overlooked the defects under CPLR 2001. The Third Department further held that the defendant’s motion to change venue should have been granted. Both the method of service (mail) and venue were based on provisions in a purchase and sale contract. However, the purchase and sale agreement was with a limited liability company, but the confessions of judgment upon which the suit were based were signed by defendant in her personal capacity, not as the sole member of the LLC. Therefore the service and venue contract provisions did not apply:

Defendant and the limited liability companies of which she is a member “are distinct entities,” however, and the former is not individually bound by the contractual commitments of the latter… . Nothing in the purchase and sale agreement binds defendant to its terms, instead making clear that no “shareholder, director, officer of or principal or agent of” [the LLC] will “have any personal liability, directly or indirectly, under or in connection with” either the agreement or any amendments to it. …

Due to the inapplicability of those contractual provisions, plaintiffs’ effort to serve defendant by mail was deficient in that service “under CPLR 3213 is subject to the rules governing service of the summons generally” … . The mailing nevertheless placed defendant on notice of the pending motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, and she responded with a cross motion that opposed the motion on various grounds. Plaintiffs then arranged for proper, albeit untimely, service of defendant pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), and advised that they were amenable to any further adjournment of the return date “as defendant and [Supreme] Court may find proper.”… Accordingly, while a wholesale failure to timely serve defendant with the initiatory papers constitutes “a fatal jurisdictional defect”… , defendant was placed on notice, then submitted a cross motion that raised various objections and included substantive opposition before being properly served. In light of these peculiar circumstances, as well as the absence of any prejudice flowing from plaintiffs’ missteps, we are persuaded that the untimeliness of the proper service could be and rightly was overlooked (seeCPLR 2001, 2004 …). Capolino v Goren, 2017 NY Slip Op 08246, Third Dept 11-22-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALLY, DEFECTS IN SERVICE PROPERLY OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (THIRD DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALLY, DEFECTS IN SERVICE PROPERLY OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALLY, DEFECTS IN SERVICE PROPERLY OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 2001 (SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALLY, DEFECTS IN SERVICE PROPERLY OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to amend the bill of particulars to add a new theory of liability should have been granted in this medical malpractice action. The amendment was based upon plaintiffs’ expert’s disclosures and the motion to amend was made shortly after the expert raised the issue:

​

While leave to amend a bill of particulars is generally freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise (see CPLR 3025[b]), where a motion for leave to amend a bill of particulars alleging a new theory of liability not raised in the claim or the original bill is made on the eve of trial, leave of court is required, and “judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly, and should be discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious”… . In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the party seeking the amendment was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated, whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered, and whether prejudice resulted therefrom … . Here, the delay would not have been prejudicial since the plaintiffs’ amendment sought to include a theory of causation of the decedent’s death raised in the defendants’ expert disclosures. Moreover, the plaintiffs did not delay in seeking the amendment after receiving the defendants’ expert disclosures, and the defendants were permitted further discovery … . Moore v Franklin Hosp. Med. Center-North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., 2017 NY Slip Op 08263, Second Dept 11-22-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BILL OF PARTICULARS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025[b] (MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS FIRST RAISED BY PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determine the motion to change venue was not brought in any county allowed by the statute and should not have been granted:

​

It is well-settled that a motion to change venue on a discretionary ground, such as the convenience of material witnesses pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), “must be made in the county in which the action is pending, or in any county in that judicial district, or in any adjoining county”… . Here, it is undisputed that the action is pending in Kings County and that Sullivan County is not in the same judicial district as Kings County nor is it an adjoining county. In light of this, we find that defendants failed to bring their motion in a proper county and, thus, Supreme Court should not have entertained the motion … . Minenko v Swinging Bridge Camp Grounds of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08245, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED (THIRD DEPT))/VENUE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 510 (MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED (THIRD DEPT))/VENUE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED (THIRD DEPT))

,

NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYS Comptroller had the power to issue a subpoena for patients’ billing records as part of an audit of a health services provider paid under the state’s Empire Plan. Neither the CPLR, which governs the confidentiality of medical records sought in discovery as part of litigation, nor the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), precluded the Comptroller from accessing the billing records:

​

We find that, contrary to petitioner’s claims and the holding of Supreme Court, the subpoena was validly issued in furtherance of [the Comptroller’s] constitutional and statutory authority and obligation to audit payments made by the state for medical services provided under the Empire Plan … . In Matter of Martin H. Handler, M.D., P.C. v DiNapoli (23 NY3d at 242-243, 245-248) … the Court of Appeals outlined … the obligations of participating and nonparticipating health care providers with regard to billing patients, and [the Comptroller’s] independent authority and obligation to audit the state’s payments to both categories of providers. As the Court of Appeals outlined, respondent is constitutionally obligated to audit state payments to health insurance vendors … . …

​

The plain language of CPLR 3122 (a) (1) and (2), read together, makes clear that the provisions apply to subpoenas issued during the discovery phase of litigation, and are not applicable to the subpoena issued by [the Comptroller] here pursuant to its authority under State Finance Law § 9 … . …

​

… HIPAA’s privacy regulations provide that “[a] covered entity may disclose protected health information to a health oversight agency for oversight activities authorized by law, including audits; civil, administrative, or criminal investigations; . . . criminal proceedings or actions; or other activities necessary for appropriate oversight of . . . [e]ntities subject to government regulatory programs for which health information is necessary for determining compliance with program standards,” without the written authorization of the patient … . Matter of The Plastic Surgery Group, P.C. v Comptroller of The State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08247, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYS COMPTROLLER, AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (NYS COMPTROLLER, AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/COMPTROLLER AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/PATIENT BILLING RECORDS  (NYS COMPTROLLER, AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (NYS COMPTROLLER, AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3122 (NYS COMPTROLLER, AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/HIPAA  (NYS COMPTROLLER, AUDIT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS, NYS COMPTROLLER HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUBPOENA PATIENT BILLING RECORDS FROM HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS PAID UNDER THE STATE’S EMPIRE PLAN TO FACILITATE AN AUDIT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

,

CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, reversing the appellate division, determined that a Cayman Islands rule (Rule 12A) governing prerequisites for bringing a shareholder derivative action was procedural, not substantive. Therefore the New York suit, which must apply Cayman Islands substantive law, should not have been dismissed for failure to comply with the rule. Whether plaintiff had standing to sue under substantive Cayman Islands law was not determined by the Court of Appeals:

 

In Tanges [93 NY2d 48] we … described general policy considerations that ought to be weighed when determining whether a rule is substantive or procedural. Specifically, we consider whether our determination would impose a burden on the foreign court (Connecticut in that instance) or federal courts operating under diversity rules and whether it would threaten to cause delay in the “conduct of judicial business and impair judicial efficiency” … . Here, these factors further weigh in favor of our conclusion that Rule 12A is procedural.

Holding that Rule 12A is procedural does not impose a burden on our courts, or the courts of the Cayman Islands (see Tanges, 93 NY2d at 58). However, were Rule 12A held to be substantive, it is unclear what procedural path a party seeking to bring a derivative action in New York on behalf of a Cayman company would follow to comply with Rule 12A. …

Therefore, a Tanges analysis also leads to the conclusion that Rule 12A is procedural in nature. Because the procedural law of the forum typically applies under our conflict of law rules … , plaintiff’s failure to first comply with Rule 12A’s leave application procedure does not bar his derivative claims … . Davis v Scottish Re Group Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 08157, CtApp 11-20-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION, CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP))/CORPORATION LAW  (SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION, CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP))/SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION (CORPORATION LAW, CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP))/DERIVATIVE ACTION (SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION, CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP))/CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION, CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP))

,

ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the appellate division, determined that, with respect to a child who has been removed from the home and placed in foster care based upon a pending neglect petition, once the underlying neglect petition has been dismissed, Family Court loses jurisdiction of the matter and cannot entertain permanency hearings to continue the foster care placement:

​

Here, the Department seizes on a hyperliteral reading of [Family Court Act] section 1088, divorced from all context, to argue that Family Court’s pre-petition placement of Jamie J. under (Family Court Act] section 1022 triggered a continuing grant of jurisdiction that survives the eventual dismissal of the neglect petition. In other words, even if the Family Court removes a child who has not been neglected or abused, it has jurisdiction to continue that child’s placement in foster care until and unless it decides otherwise. Section 1088’s place in the overall statutory scheme, the legislative history of article 10-A, and the dictates of parents’ and children’s constitutional rights to remain together compel the opposite conclusion: Family Court’s jurisdiction terminates upon dismissal of the original neglect or abuse petition. Matter of Jamie J. (Michelle E.C.), 2017 NY Slip Op 08161, CtApp 11-20-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP))/FOSTER CARE (FAMILY LAW, ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP))/PERMANENCY HEARINGS (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, JURISDICTION, ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP))/JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FAMILY LAW, (ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP))

, ,

NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined that he New York City charter provisions governing service of a Notice of Violation (NOV) of the building code require only one unsuccessful attempt at personal service before the affix and mail provisions kick in. The CPLR nail and mail provisions (which require due diligence in the attempts at personal service) do not apply:

​

The question presented is whether, prior to use of the affix and mail procedure, the City Charter requires more than a single attempt to personally serve the NOV at the premises. * * *

​

… [T]he plain language of the relevant statute speaks in the singular — “[s]uch notice may only be affixed . . . where a reasonable attempt has been made” at personal delivery — indicating that only one attempt is required … . * * *

​

Moreover, the alternate service procedure authorized by the statute — a single attempt to personally deliver the NOV, coupled with affixing the NOV to the property and mailing copies to the owner at the premises and other addresses on file with related City agencies — is reasonably calculated to inform owners of violations relating to their properties. Matter of Mestecky v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08162, CtApp 11-20-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC) (NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (NYC, BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NYC, BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/NOTICES OF VIOLATION (NYC BUILDING CODE, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/NAIL AND MAIL (NYC BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NOV)  (NYC BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))

, ,

PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the decision vacating an order concerning a counterclaim in a prior appeal was the law of the case, despite the “otherwise affirmed” phrase in the decision, and Supreme Court should not have adhered to a prior ruling on the counterclaim in Supreme Court. The Fourth Department further held that Supreme Court properly found a report prepared by an accountant was prepared in anticipation of litigation and was not discoverable as a “mixed file:”

​

“An appellate court’s resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on . . . Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court . . . [T]he “law of the case” operates to foreclose re-examination of [the] question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law’ “… . Nevertheless, “where a court has vacated an earlier order, the doctrine of . . . law of the case no longer applies . . . Indeed, a vacated judgment has no preclusive force either as a matter of collateral or direct estoppel or as a matter of the law of the case’ “… . While this Court may have “otherwise affirmed” the order insofar as it concerned the issues unrelated to the counterclaim, we dismissed the appeal from that part of the order concerning the counterclaim and vacated the judgment. That necessarily means that any determinations related to the counterclaim were not encompassed by the “otherwise affirmed” language related to the order … . Micro-Link, LLC v Town of Amherst, 2017 NY Slip Op 08120, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OF THE CASE, DISCOVERY, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, LAW OF THE CASE, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (MATERIAL PREPARED FOR LITIGATION, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/ACCOUNTANTS (PRIVILEGE, REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/LAW OF THE CASE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION VACATING AN ORDER CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, NOT A PRIOR SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE COUNTERCLAIM, ACCOUNTANT REPORT PREPARED FOR LITIGATION NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT))

WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined that CPLR 3404, which deems an action abandoned if not restored within a year of being marked off or struck from the calendar, does not apply to cases where a note of issue was filed but subsequently was vacated. The 1st and 2nd Department adhere to this view, the 3rd Department does not:

In accordance with the tenor and spirit of our existing case law, we now explicitly adopt the 1st and 2nd Departments’ rule, and reject the 3rd Department’s. It is axiomatic that CPLR 3404 has no applicability in the absence of an extant and valid note of issue … , and we agree with the Second Department that “[t]he vacatur of a note of issue . . . returns the case to pre-note of issue status [and] does not constitute a marking off’ or striking the case from the court’s calendar within the meaning of CPLR 3404” … . To state the obvious, a note of issue does not survive its own vacatur, and it makes no sense to apply CPLR 3404 when the statute’s operative premise—i.e., the continuing vitality of the note of issue—no longer exists. Bradley v Konakanchi, 2017 NY Slip Op 08125, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY IS VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 3403 (WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY IS VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT))/NOTE OF ISSUE  (WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY IS VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT))/ABANDONMENT (CPLR 3404, WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY IS VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict in this contract dispute should have been granted. Defendant signed the contract as president of a corporation which existed but was misnamed. Defendant could not be held personally liable:

​

“According to the well settled general rule, individual officers or directors are not personally liable on contracts entered into on behalf of a corporation if they do not purport to bind themselves individually’ . . . However, it is also well established that an agent who acts on behalf of a nonexistent principal may be held personally liable on the contract”… . “The rule [was] designed to protect a party who enters into a contract where the other signatory represents that he is signing on behalf of a business entity that in fact does not exist, under any name . . . [Thus,] as long as the identity of the corporation can be reasonably established from the evidence[,] . . . [an e]rror in the use of the corporate name will not be permitted to frustrate the intent which the name was meant to convey’ . . . In such a situation, . . . there is no need or basis to impose personal liability on the person who signed the contract as agent for the entity”… . “Accordingly, absent an allegation that, at the time of the contract, a plaintiff was under an actual misapprehension that there was some other, unincorporated group with virtually the same name as that of the actual business entity, the [c]ourt will not permit the [plaintiff] to capitalize on [a] technical naming error in contravention of the parties’ evident intentions’ ” … .

Thus, courts have determined that the individual who signed the contract may be liable where there was no existing corporation under any name because, under those circumstances, the plaintiff has “no remedy except against the individuals who acted as agents of those purported corporations”… . Where, as here, there was an existing corporation and merely a misnomer in the name of the corporation, courts have declined to impose liability on the individual who signed the contract because the plaintiff has a remedy against the existing, albeit misnamed, corporation… .

Here, we conclude that no one was under an actual misapprehension that there was an entity with the name. TBW, INC. J.N.K. Mach. Corp. v TBW, Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 08106, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

CORPORATION LAW (CONTRACT LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (CORPORATION LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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