You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the declaratory judgment action which sought a determination of the ownership of a stock certificate representing shares in a cooperative apartment was governed by the three-year statute of limitation. The stock certificate was personal property, not real estate:

​

The defendants established that the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for recovery of a chattel (see CPLR 214[3]). “In order to determine the Statute of Limitations applicable to a particular declaratory judgment action, the court must examine the substance of that action to identify the relationship out of which the claim arises and the relief sought'”

… . “If the court determines that the underlying dispute can be or could have been resolved through a form of action or proceeding for which a specific limitation period is statutorily provided, that limitation period governs the declaratory judgment action” … . Here, the plaintiff seeks to recover a stock certificate representing shares in a cooperative apartment corporation. An action to recover a stock certificate is governed by the three-year statute of limitations for recovery of a chattel … . “Shares of stock issued in connection with cooperative apartments are personal property, not real property” … . Loscalzo v 507-509 President St. Tenants Assn. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06070, Second Dept 8-9-17

​

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/SECURITIES (SHARES IN COOPERATIVE APARTMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/COOPERATIVES (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))

,

REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Limited Liability Company Law requirements for a default judgment against an unauthorized foreign limited liability company were not met:

A plaintiff seeking leave to enter a default judgment must file proof of proper service of the summons and the complaint, the defendant’s default, and the facts constituting the claim (see CPLR 3215[f] …).

The plaintiff averred that it served the defendant, a foreign limited liability company not authorized to conduct business in New York, pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 304. As relevant to the plaintiff’s contentions, that statute requires three things. First, 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 … . 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 sent to the defendant by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the defendant’s last known address … . Third, after process has been delivered to the Secretary of State and direct notice of that service has been sent to the defendant, the plaintiff must file proof of service with the clerk of the court. That proof of service must be in the form of an “affidavit of compliance.” The affidavit of compliance must be filed with the return receipt within 30 days after the plaintiff has received the return receipt from the post office. Service of process shall be complete 10 days after the affidavit of compliance has been filed with the clerk with a copy of the summons and complaint … . Strict compliance with Limited Liability Company Law § 304 is required, including as to the filing of an “affidavit of compliance” … . Where the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate strict compliance, the plaintiff will not be entitled to a default judgment … . Here, the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of compliance with the return receipt within 30 days after it received the return receipt from the post office. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to enter a default judgment was properly denied … . Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Surgery Ctr. of Oradell, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06065, Second Dept 8-9-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW, DEFAULT JUDGMENT, REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (DEFAULT JUDGMENT, REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly dissolved a closely-held corporation, finding that the respondent shareholders had “breached their fiduciary duties owed to petitioners by engaging in oppressive conduct aimed at ‘freez[ing]’ petitioners out of the corporation, as well as looting, wasting and/or diverting corporate assets for noncorporate purposes.” The decision is detailed and fact-specific. The court noted that the shares of two of the petitioners were beneficial shares in that they were held in trust by their father, who was also a petitioner. Although the children did not have standing to bring an action to dissolve the corporation because the holders of beneficial shares cannot vote, their father, as trustee, could vote, which conferred standing. The court further noted that an action to dissolve a corporation based on a breach of a fiduciary duty is equitable in nature and therefore the six-year statute of limitations applies. The action was timely because the first overt repudiation of a fiduciary duty by the respondents occurred within six years of the action:

​

Here, the gravamen of the petition is that respondents, as the majority shareholders, breached their fiduciary duties owed to petitioners, as the minority shareholders. Although the petition alleges fraudulent acts in the form of looting, the allegation of fraud is not essential to the breach of fiduciary duty claim. In light of this, and the fact that the remedy of a judicial dissolution is equitable in nature, we find that “the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213 (1) applies” … , and it does not commence “until there has been an open repudiation by the fiduciary or the relationship has otherwise been clearly terminated”… . In our view, respondents’ attempt in 2009 to force petitioners to sell their shares is the earliest point at which respondents can be said to have openly repudiated the fiduciary relationship. Given that this proceeding was commenced within six years of the 2009 force-out attempt, we agree with Supreme Court that this proceeding is not time-barred. * * *

​

Business Corporation Law § 1104-a permits a court to dissolve a closely-held corporation where, as is relevant here, those in control of the corporation have engaged in “oppressive actions toward the complaining shareholders” or have “looted, wasted, or diverted” corporate assets for noncorporate purposes (Business Corporation Law § 1104-a [a] [1], [2] …). “Although the term ‘oppressive actions’ is not statutorily defined, the Court of Appeals has held that ‘oppression should be deemed to arise . . . when the majority conduct substantially defeats expectations that, objectively viewed, were both reasonable under the circumstances and were central to the petitioner[s’] decision to join the venture'”… . Contrary to respondents’ contention, this standard is equally applicable to passive shareholders, such as petitioners, inasmuch as the standard is not focused on the complaining shareholders’ level of involvement with the corporation but, rather, their reasonable expectations and whether those expectations were defeated … . Matter of Twin Bay Vil., Inc. v Kasian, 2017 NY Slip Op 06024, Third Dept 8-3-17

 

CORPORATION LAW (DISSOLUTION, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/DISSOLUTION (CORPORATION LAW, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/FIDUCIARY DUTY (CORPORATION LAW, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CLOSELY HELD CORPORATIONS (DISSOLUTION, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DISSOLUTION OF CORPORATIONS, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

ATTORNEY’S INACTION NOT IMPUTED TO THE CLIENT, DEFAULT ORDER AND JUDGMENT PROPERLY VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly vacated the default order and judgment which were issued because of plaintiff’s attorney’s failure to meet discovery deadlines and attend scheduled conferences. Plaintiff, upon learning of the default, promptly hired new counsel and moved to vacate the default order and judgment. The Third Department noted that an attorney’s misconduct is not necessarily to be imputed to the represented party:

​

“A motion to vacate a prior judgment or order is addressed to the court’s sound discretion, subject to reversal only where there has been a clear abuse of that discretion”… . Further, “[c]ourts are not limited to vacating a judgment pursuant to the enumerated grounds set forth in CPLR 5015 . . ., as they retain inherent discretionary power to vacate their own judgments for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice”… .

Here, even applying the arguably more exacting standard set forth in CPLR 5015 (a) (1), we do not find that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting [plaintiff’s] motion. While there indeed may be instances where counsel’s inaction or dilatory conduct may be imputed to the client … , a review of [plaintiff’s] affidavit — together with the supporting documentation annexed thereto — reveals that she never intended to abandon either the pursuit of action No. 1 or the defense of action No. 2 … but, rather, reasonably believed that [her attorney] was actively pursuing and properly defending [plaintiff’s] interests in the context thereof … . Inwald Enters., LLC v Aloha Energy, 2017 NY Slip Op 06031, Third Dept 8-3-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAULT, ATTORNEY’S INACTION NOT IMPUTED TO THE CLIENT, DEFAULT ORDER AND JUDGMENT PROPERLY VACATED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (DEFAULT,  ATTORNEY’S INACTION NOT IMPUTED TO THE CLIENT, DEFAULT ORDER AND JUDGMENT PROPERLY VACATED (THIRD DEPT))

PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A PARTY INITIALLY NAMED AS JOHN DOE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s attempt to file an amended complaint naming a defendant (Rytec) which had been identified as John Doe was time-barred. The initial complaint was filed three days before the statute of limitations expired and the John Doe designation did not toll the statute:

The statutory provision allowing commencement of an action against unknown parties does not toll the statute of limitations (see CPLR 1024… ). As Supreme Court held, plaintiff was required to serve all parties within 120 days of filing, or seek leave to extend the time for service “upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice” (CPLR 306-b… ). Here, plaintiff failed to seek leave to extend the time for service prior to expiration of the statutory limitations period.

Further, a party seeking to apply the relation-back doctrine under CPLR 1024 carries the burden “of establishing that diligent efforts were made to ascertain the unknown party’s identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations” … .

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint was filed nearly 10 months after the statute of limitations expired, with the delay essentially unexplained but for a statement that Rytec’s identity could not be ascertained until the door was inspected in May 2015. There was no effort to explain any basis for the precommencement delay, and no discussion relative to any of the potential additional discovery efforts that might or could have been undertaken prior to the expiration of the limitations period… .

Accordingly, we find that Supreme Court properly granted Rytec’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint against it, as it was barred by the statute of limitations … . Walker v Hormann Flexon, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06023, Third Dept 8-3-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (UNKNOWN PARTIES, PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A PARTY INITIALLY NAMED AS JOHN DOE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT))/UNKNOWN PARTIES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A PARTY INITIALLY NAMED AS JOHN DOE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT))/JOHN DOES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A PARTY INITIALLY NAMED AS JOHN DOE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT))

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to extend the time for service of the summons and complaint should have been granted. The action had been timely commenced but the statute of limitations had expired when the defect in service was discovered:

The denial of the plaintiffs’ renewed motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the defendants with the summons and complaint was an improvident exercise of discretion … . While the action was timely commenced, the statute of limitations had expired when the plaintiffs first moved for relief, the timely service of process was subsequently found to have been defective, and the defendants had actual notice of the action within 120 days of commencement of the action… . Furthermore, the plaintiffs demonstrated a potentially meritorious cause of action, and there was no prejudice to the defendants attributable to the delay in service … . Singh v Trahan, 2017 NY Slip Op 06395, Second Dept 8-30-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS (MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the medical malpractice (2 1/2 year) rather than the negligence (3 year) statute of limitations applied to this action stemming from the alleged failure to restrain a patient (plaintiff’s decedent) with dementia. The patient was injured when she fell. The court held the action was governed by the medical malpractice limitations period and was therefore untimely:

​

“The distinction between ordinary negligence and malpractice turns on whether the acts or omissions complained of involve a matter of medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons or whether the conduct complained of can instead be assessed on the basis of the common everyday experience of the trier of the facts” … . Generally, a claim will be deemed to sound in medical malpractice “when the challenged conduct constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician'” … . Thus, when the complaint challenges a medical facility’s performance of functions that are “an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment” and diagnosis to a patient, such as taking a medical history and determining the need for restraints, the action sounds in medical malpractice… .

… The defendants’ evidence showed that on April 12, 2009, the plaintiff’s decedent, Ruby Bell (hereinafter the decedent), was admitted to New Island Hospital with a history of dementia, and placed on “Fall Prevention Protocol.” After the decedent was found standing at her bedside trying to remove her foley catheter, a physician ordered that she be restrained with a vest and wrist restraints. On the morning of April 18, 2009, the decedent was discovered sitting on the floor next to her bed. The bed’s side rails were up and the decedent was not aware of how she came to be on the floor. She had apparently fallen while trying to climb out of her bed. Thereafter, the decedent was diagnosed with a distal radius fracture of the right forearm. The plaintiff alleged that this incident arose out of the failure of the defendants’ staff to follow the physician’s order to restrain her … .

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the allegations at issue essentially challenged the defendants’ assessment of the decedent’s supervisory and treatment needs … . Bell v WSNCHS N., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05937, 2nd Dept 8-2-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the file for a pre-litigation investigation of a fire insurance claim done by a law firm hired by the insurer was discoverable.  The court further found the attorney who conducted the investigation was properly disqualified because she may be a fact witness in the underlying litigation, but her law firm should not have been disqualified because her testimony would not be prejudicial to the client’s case:

​

CPLR 3101(a) entitles parties to “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” Discovery determinations should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis “with due regard for the strong policy supporting open disclosure” … .

“[T]he payment or rejection of claims is a part of the regular business of an insurance company. Consequently, reports which aid it in the process of deciding [whether to pay or reject a claim] are made in the regular course of its business” … . Reports prepared by insurance investigators, adjusters, or attorneys before the decision is made to pay or reject a claim are not privileged and are discoverable, even when those reports are mixed/multi-purpose reports, motivated in part by the potential for litigation with the insured … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly compelled disclosure, as the material … was prepared by [the law firm] as part of [the insurer’s] investigation into the claim, and was not primarily and predominantly of a legal character … . …

​

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in disqualifying … the attorney who conducted the investigation … since she was likely to be a witness on a significant issue of fact … . However, it improvidently exercised its discretion in disqualifying [the law firm] itself …. Pursuant to Rule 3.7(b)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, “[a] lawyer may not act as [an] advocate before a tribunal in a matter if . . . another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is likely to be called as a witness on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client”… . Here, there was no showing that [the attorney’s] testimony may be prejudicial to [the client’s] case … . Advanced Chimney, Inc. v Graziano, 2017 NY Slip Op 05927, Second Dept 8-2-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (DISCOVERY, ATTORNEYS, PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, ATTORNEYS, PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (INSURANCE LAW, PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT))

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF MORE TIME TO FILE PAPERS OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE LACK OF PREJUDICE AND MERITORIOUS DEFENSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have rejected plaintiff’s request for more time to file opposition papers. On the return date for the motion to dismiss, plaintiff tried to file a stipulation signed by defendant’s (NCAA’s) counsel which allowed plaintiff to adjourn the motion and granted plaintiff more time in which to file the papers. The court rejected the stipulation and marked the motion unopposed. That same evening, plaintiff e-filed the opposing papers:

​

CPLR 2004 provides that, “[e]xcept where otherwise expressly prescribed by law, the court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown, whether the application for extension is made before or after the expiration of the time fixed.” In considering a motion for an extension of time, “the court may properly consider factors such as the length of the delay, whether the opposing party has been prejudiced by the delay, the reason given for the delay, whether the moving party was in default before seeking the extension, and, if so, the presence or absence of an affidavit of merit” … .

Here, the plaintiff established good cause for an extension of his time to submit opposition papers to the NCAA’s motion given the brief and unintentional delay, the lack of prejudice to the NCAA, the existence of potentially meritorious defenses to the NCAA’s motion, and “the policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits” … . Calderone v Molloy Coll., 2017 NY Slip Op 05932, Second Dept 8-2-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CPLR 2004, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF MORE TIME TO FILE PAPERS OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE LACK OF PREJUDICE AND MERITORIOUS DEFENSES (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2004 (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF MORE TIME TO FILE PAPERS OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE LACK OF PREJUDICE AND MERITORIOUS DEFENSES (SECOND DEPT))

​

CPLR 5003-A, WHICH MANDATES PROMPT PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF, DOES NOT APPLY TO PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined CPLR 5003-a, which requires the prompt payment of a settlement to the plaintiff, does not apply to payments owed to a third-party, even though the settlement agreement requires that the third party be paid. Here the settlement agreement required defendant to pay a Worker’s Compensation lien:

… [W]e conclude that CPLR 5003-a applies only to the nonpayment of settlement monies owed directly to a settling plaintiff pursuant to a settlement agreement. This construction is not only in accord with the plain language of the prompt payment mandate itself, but is also supported by the language of the statutory enforcement mechanism set forth in subdivision (e). CPLR 5003-a (e), the teeth that effectuate subdivision (a)’s prompt payment directive, authorizes an “unpaid plaintiff” to enter judgment inclusive of interest, costs and disbursements against the nonpaying settling defendant … . Simply put, plaintiff here is not “unpaid” — all sums required to be paid to him pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement (i.e., $3.25 million) were paid by defendant within the statutorily-prescribed 21-day time period. Had the Legislature intended to extend the reach of CPLR 5003-a to a settling defendant’s failure to promptly pay all valuable consideration due a settling plaintiff pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, it could have easily said so. It did not, and “‘a court cannot amend a statute by inserting words that are not there'” … . Ronkese v Tilcon N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05905, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SETTLEMENTS, CPLR 5003-A, WHICH MANDATES PROMPT PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF, DOES NOT APPLY TO PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 3RD DEPT)/SETTLEMENTS (CPLR 5003-A, WHICH MANDATES PROMPT PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF, DOES NOT APPLY TO PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 3RD 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