You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, determined requiring an out-of-state resident to post security for costs associated with a lawsuit brought in New York does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the US Constitution. The plaintiff was injured in an accident in New York (when she was a New York resident) and subsequently moved to Georgia. The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 8501 and 8503 to direct plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $500:

… [T]he U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause is satisfied so long as a nonresident ” is given access to the courts of the State upon terms which in themselves are reasonable and adequate for the enforcing of any rights he [or she] may have'” … . … There is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment between nonresidents and residents, namely, the fact that nonresident plaintiffs are unlikely to have assets in New York that may be used to enforce a costs judgment. And the discrimination practiced against nonresidents—requiring nonresident plaintiffs to post security for costs—bears a substantial relationship to the State’s objective of deterring frivolous or harassing lawsuits and preventing a defendant from having to resort to a foreign jurisdiction to enforce a costs judgment … . Clement v Durban, 2016 NY Slip Op 08500, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)/COSTS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)/SECURITY (COSTS CIVIL PROCEDURE, REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)/PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)

,

INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly set aside a verdict in a slip and fall case as inconsistent. The jury found plaintiff was negligent but her negligence was not a substantial factor in causing her injuries (she slipped and fell on a wet floor in defendant’s store). But the jury went on to attribute 15% of the fault for the accident to plaintiff:

… [W]hen a jury’s verdict is internally inconsistent, the trial court must order either reconsideration by the jury or a new trial … . Under the circumstances here, the jury’s verdict as to liability was internally inconsistent because the jury attributed 15% of the fault for the accident to the plaintiff, despite having found that the plaintiff’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing her injuries … . The Supreme Court properly determined that the jury was confused about the meaning of the court’s charge regarding proximate cause when it returned its liability verdict … . Magee v Cumberland Farms, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08354,  2nd Dept 12-14-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASSIDE)/NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE)/SLIP AND FALL (INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE)

, ,

PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A LAUNDRY LIST OF FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION SUCCINCTLY ILLUSTRATED.

The Second Department, in the context of motions to dismiss, motions for injunctions, and motions for sanctions, described the pleading requirements for the following causes of action: preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, constructive trust, conspiracy to commit a tort, fraudulent conveyance, unjust enrichment and conversion. Swartz v Swartz, 2016 NY Slip Op 08390, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A LAUNDRY LIST OF FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION SUCCINCTLY ILLUSTRATED)/FRAUD PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A LAUNDRY LIST OF FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION SUCCINCTLY ILLUSTRATED)

, , ,

SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined that fraud-related actions against defendant Credit Suisse (stemming from the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities [RMBS]) were governed by the six-year, not three-year statute of limitations. The actions were brought pursuant to the Martin Act and Executive Law 63(12). Those statutes were deemed to have codified common law causes of action. Therefore the six-year statute (CPLR 213), not the three-year statute (CPLR 214) applies:

Where claims are “to recover upon a liability . . . created or imposed by statute” (CPLR 214[2]), and the liability, although akin to common-law causes, “would not exist but for [the] statute” … , the three-year statute of limitations of CPLR 214(2) applies … . In contrast, where a statute “merely codifies and affords new remedies for what in essence is a common-law … claim[,]” CPLR 214(2) does not apply and “the Statute of Limitations for the statutory claim is that for the common-law cause of action which the statute codified or implemented”(id. at 208).

In the complaint, the Attorney General alleges, inter alia, that defendants’ fraud was their failure to abide by their representations that they had carefully evaluated and would continue to monitor the quality of the loans underlying their RMBS, and that they would encourage loan originators to implement sound origination practices. Instead, defendants routinely ignored defects discovered in their due diligence reviews and did not seek to influence originators to utilize appropriate origination practices, choosing instead to misuse their quality control process to obtain significant monetary settlements from originators, which defendants improperly kept for themselves. People v Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08339, 1st Dept 12-13-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/SECURITIES (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/FRAUD (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/CRIMINAL LAW (SECURITIES FRAUD, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/EXECUTIVE LAW 63 (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/MARTIN ACT (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/STATUTE OF LIMITATION (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63),RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)

REDACTED DOCUMENTS AND A SEALED RECORD MUST BE UNREDACTED AND UNSEALED, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE FOR REDACTION AND SEALING EXPLAINED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined redacted documents filed in connection with one lawsuit, and the entirely sealed record of a second lawsuit should be fully disclosed and available to the media (the intervenors here):

This Court has previously held that there is a “broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records” … . The right of public access includes the right of the press to read and review court documents, unless those documents have been sealed pursuant to a statutory provision or by a properly issued sealing order. To allow them to assert their interests here, the proposed intervenors should be allowed to intervene in both actions for the limited purpose of obtaining access to court records … .

Furthermore, because confidentiality is the exception and not the rule … , “the party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access” … . Having reviewed the record, we see no basis to seal the entire court record in the second action; therefore, we vacate the sealing order. It appears that the motion court sealed the second action because the parties stipulated to it. Before sealing, the motion court should have made its own written finding of good cause, as is required by the provisions of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 216.1(a) … . Maxim Inc. v Feifer, 2016 NY Slip Op 08319, 1st Dept 12-13-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (REDACTED DOCUMENTS AND A SEALED RECORD MUST BE UNREDACTED AND UNSEALED, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE FOR REDACTION AND SEALING EXPLAINED)/SEALING-REDACTION OF COURT RECORDS (CIVIL, REDACTED DOCUMENTS AND A SEALED RECORD MUST BE UNREDACTED AND UNSEALED, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE FOR REDACTION AND SEALING EXPLAINED)

,

DEPOSITION OF TOWN ASSESSOR PROPERLY ALLOWED IN THIS SELECTIVE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING.

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined the deposition of the town tax assessor was properly allowed in this proceeding challenging a tax assessment of a golf course as “selective reassessment:”

“A property owner may challenge an assessment pursuant to RPTL article 7 on several grounds, including that the assessment is excessive, unequal or unlawful” … . Furthermore, “[i]t is well settled that a system of selective reassessment that has no rational basis in law violates the equal protection provisions of the constitutions of the United States and the State of New York” … .

“[D]iscovery in a RPTL article 7 proceeding is governed by CPLR 408, pursuant to which trial courts have broad discretion in directing the disclosure of material and necessary information” … . The trial court’s decision to compel discovery is accorded deference on appeal and should not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion as a matter of law … . Additionally, to obtain discovery, a party must submit an affirmation showing “a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the [discovery] motion” or indicating “good cause” why no communications occurred between the parties in this regard (22 NYCRR 202.7 [a] [2]; [c]…). Matter of City of Troy v Assessor of The Town of Brunswick, 2016 NY Slip Op 08280, 3rd Dept 12-8-16

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (DEPOSITION OF TOWN ASSESSOR PROPERLY ALLOWED IN THIS SELECTIVE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, DEPOSITION OF TOWN ASSESSOR PROPERLY ALLOWED IN THIS SELECTIVE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING)

, ,

STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE.

The First Department determined that a statement by an unidentified bystander, audible on the 911 call, was properly admitted as an excited utterance. The court noted that another judge, who became ill, had ruled the statement inadmissible. Because it was an evidentiary ruling, it was not subject to the law of the case doctrine:

The court providently admitted, as an excited utterance, the statement of an unidentified bystander, audible on the 911 call made by one of the victims, that implicated defendant. All of the circumstances — most significantly that the statement was made immediately after the shooting — established a strong likelihood that the declarant observed the shooting … .

Although a contrary ruling on the excited utterance issue had been made by a previous judge, who presided over part of jury selection but was unable to continue because of illness, this circumstance did not foreclose the successor judge’s ruling by operation of the law of the case doctrine. The ruling was evidentiary and did not fall within the ambit of that doctrine (see People v Evans , 94 NY2d 499 [2000]). Defendant does not dispute that this was the type of ruling that, under Evans , may be revisited by a successor judge in a retrial. We see no reason to apply a different rule where there are successive judges in the same trial … . People v Cummings, 2016 NY Slip Op 08298, 1st Dept 12-8-16

CRIMINAL LAW (STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/EXCITED UTTERANCE  (STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/HEARSAY (EXCITED UTTERANCE, STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENT BY UNIDENTIFIED BYSTANDER, AUDIBLE ON THE 911 CALL, ADMISSIBLE, EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE)

,

SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT.

The Second Department, in affirming the denial of a motion to dismiss a cause of action for fraud, noted that the specificity required for a fraud complaint is tempered when the details are exclusively within the knowledge of the defendant:

A plaintiff asserting a cause of action alleging fraud is required to plead with particularity (see CPLR 3016[b]…). When, however, the operative facts are “peculiarly within the knowledge of the party” alleged to have committed the fraud, it may be impossible at the early stages of the proceeding for the plaintiff to detail all the circumstances constituting the fraud … . Thus, as the Court of Appeals has held, the pleading requirement of CPLR 3016(b) “should not be so strictly interpreted as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud'” … . Instead, the pleading requirement will be deemed to have been met “when the facts are sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of the alleged conduct” … . Bibbo v Arvanitakis, 2016 NY Slip Op 08194, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

FRAUD (SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, FRAUD, SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT).DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL, FRAUD, SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT)

,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s right to make a motion to dismiss the foreclosure cause of action as abandoned was not waived by defendant’s motion to vacate the default and file a late answer:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant did not waive the right to seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) by moving to vacate her default and for leave to serve a late answer. “The mere fact that the legislative intent underlying CPLR 3215(c) was to prevent the plaintiffs from unreasonably delaying the determination of an action, does not foreclose the possibility that a defendant may waive the right to seek a dismissal pursuant to the section by his or her conduct” … . A defendant may waive the right to seek a dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) by serving an answer or taking “any other steps which may be viewed as a formal or informal appearance” … . However, a motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) for leave to serve an untimely answer does not constitute either a formal (see CPLR 320) or informal appearance … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Grella, 2016 NY Slip Op 08199, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

FORECLOSURE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED)/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED)/DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED)/ABANDONMENT OF ACTION (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED)

,

GENERAL PRAYER FOR RELIEF WILL NOT JUSTIFY RELIEF DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT REQUESTED IN THE MOTION, REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE USED TO ADVANCE NEW ARGUMENTS.

In the context of a foreclosure proceeding, the Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, explained that a general prayer for relief cannot justify relief dramatically different from that requested in the motion, and reply papers cannot be used to raise new arguments:

The court may grant relief that is warranted pursuant to a general prayer for relief contained in a notice of motion if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party … . Here, [defendant’s] application to vacate the final judgment of foreclosure and sale, as well as the related relief awarded, sua sponte, by the Supreme Court, was “dramatically unlike” the relief sought in Ivette’s motion, which only sought to stay the impending foreclosure sale based on her pending contempt motion in the matrimonial action.

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 … . Here, [defendant’s] reply papers included new arguments in support of the motion, new grounds and evidence for the motion, and expressly requested relief that was dramatically unlike the relief sought in her original motion. Accordingly, those contentions, and the grounds and evidence in support of them, were not properly before the Supreme Court. Similarly, the court erred in, sua sponte, awarding related relief not requested by the parties … . USAA Fed. Sav. Bank v Calvin, 2016 NY Slip Op 08223, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (GENERAL PRAYER FOR RELIEF WILL NOT JUSTIFY RELIEF DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT REQUESTED IN THE MOTION, REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE USED TO ADVANCE NEW ARGUMENTS)/MOTION PAPERS (CIVIL, GENERAL PRAYER FOR RELIEF WILL NOT JUSTIFY RELIEF DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT REQUESTED IN THE MOTION, REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE USED TO ADVANCE NEW ARGUMENTS)/REPLY PAPERS (CIVIL, REPLY PAPERS CANNOT BE USED TO ADVANCE NEW ARGUMENTS)

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