You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

FRAUD ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING MUST BE ADDRESSED BY A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT IN A SECOND PLENARY ACTION.

The Fourth Department determined that a second plenary action for fraud allegedly committed in a foreclosure proceeding is not proper. The proper remedy is a motion to vacate the judgment in the foreclosure proceeding:

​

“To the extent that the [amended] complaint alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party committed during the course of the prior litigation, plaintiff[s’] sole remedy was a motion to vacate the court’s prior order pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3). A litigant’s remedy for alleged fraud in the course of a legal proceeding lies exclusively in that lawsuit itself, i.e., by moving pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the [judgment] due to its fraudulent procurement, not a second plenary action collaterally attacking the” judgment … .

Contrary to plaintiffs’ further contention, this case does not fit within the exception … which applies when the alleged fraud or perjury “is merely a means to the accomplishment of a larger fraudulent scheme,” i.e., one “greater in scope than [that] in the prior proceeding” … .  MAA-Sharda, Inc. v First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03290, 4th Dept 4-28-17

FRAUD (FRAUD ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING MUST BE ADDRESSED BY A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT IN A SECOND PLENARY ACTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRAUD ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING MUST BE ADDRESSED BY A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT IN A SECOND PLENARY ACTION)

, ,

JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE.

The Fourth Department, in an original Article 78 proceeding, determined the judge was prohibited from imposing on defendant a sentence of probation. Defendant was sentenced to 30 days in jail. Outside the defendant’s presence the sentencing judge signed an order imposing a five-year probationary period and defendant agreed to the order by signing it in jail:

​

While a court possesses the inherent authority to correct a mistake or error in a criminal defendant’s sentence … , the process by which a court corrects such an error is by resentencing the defendant … , which must be done in the defendant’s presence (see CPL 380.40 [1]). We thus conclude that the Judge erred in imposing an additional component to the sentence outside of petitioner’s presence …

We further conclude that petitioner cannot now be resentenced. It is well settled that, “where a defendant is released from custody and returns to the community after serving the period of incarceration that was ordered by the sentencing court, and the time to appeal the sentence has expired or the appeal has been finally determined,’ a legitimate expectation of the original sentence’s finality arises and double jeopardy precludes the modification of that sentence to include a period of” probation … . Here, ,,, petitioner has completed serving the period of incarceration and has been released from custody. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal, and the time within which to do so has expired … . Although petitioner, as of this writing, could still move for an extension of time to take an appeal … , he cannot be forced to do so. We thus conclude that petitioner’s sentence is “beyond the court’s authority,” and an additional component to that sentence cannot be imposed … . Matter of Brandon v Doran, 2017 NY Slip Op 03371, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78, PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/JUDGES (ARTICLE 78, PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/SENTENCING (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)

,

SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a concurrence and a two-justice dissent, determined the action by the respondent school district (re: terminating certain health insurance available to retirees) was not quasi-legislative. Therefore the four-month statute of limitations for petitioners’ Article 78 contesting the school district’s action did not start to run upon the mailing of the undated notification letter. The respondents, therefore, did not demonstrate the Article 78 proceeding was barred by the statute of limitations:

​

A quasi-legislative-type administrative determination is one having an impact far beyond the immediate parties at the administrative stage… . Thus, where a quasi-legislative determination is challenged, “actual notice of the challenged determination is not required in order to start the statute of limitations clock” … . The policy underlying the rule is that actual notice to the general public is not practicable … . Instead, the statute of limitations begins to run once the administrative agency’s quasi-legislative determination of the issue becomes “readily ascertainable” to the complaining party… .

On the other hand, where the public at large is not impacted by a determination, actual notice, commonly in the form of receipt of a letter or other writing containing the final and binding determination, is required to commence the statute of limitations … . * * *

​

… [I]nasmuch as respondents, in our view, failed to meet their burden to establish when the four-month statute of limitations commenced, the burden did not shift to petitioners to establish any particular date of individual receipt of the undated letter. In any event, respondents failed to establish any dates of receipt by petitioners in their moving papers. Matter of Knavel v West Seneca Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 03416, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)/QUASI-LEGISLATIVE ACTION (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)/ARTICLE 78 (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, (SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (ARTICLE 78, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)

, ,

HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department, in affirming summary judgment for defendant in this dog bite case, noted that hearsay, standing alone, is insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Defendant (Nicole) demonstrated she had no knowledge the dog had vicious propensities. In response, plaintiff presented only hearsay:

​

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through Nicole’s deposition testimony, that she was not aware, nor should she have been aware, that the dog had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any aggressive behavior … . Nicole testified that she had purchased the dog when it was two months old, the dog had undergone obedience training, and the dog had never attacked or bitten anyone before the incident at issue.

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. The only evidence offered by the plaintiff to demonstrate that, prior to this incident, the dog had exhibited fierce or hostile tendencies was hearsay, which is insufficient, on its own, to bar summary judgment … . Ciliotta v Ranieri, 2017 NY Slip Op 03150, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/DOG BITE  (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT,  HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)

,

MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend his bill of particulars to reflect a different date for the injury allegedly caused by defendant’s employees during a carpet delivery should not have been granted. The motion was made on the eve of trial more than four years after the action was commenced and after plaintiff had repeatedly asserted the date during discovery. It turned out that no delivery was made by defendant on the date alleged in the pleadings:

​

“Generally, [i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'”… . Where, however, the application for leave to amend is made long after the action has been certified for trial, judicial discretion in allowing such amendments should be discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious… . “Moreover, when . . . leave is sought on the eve of trial, judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly” … .

Here, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend his bill of particulars more than four years after the action was commenced, and almost a year after the matter was stricken from the trial calendar. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars, as the defendant demonstrated that it would suffer significant prejudice as a result of the unexplained delay … . Tabak v Shaw Indus., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03213, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE  (MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/BILL OF PARTICULARS, MOTION TO AMEND  (NEGLIGENCE, MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the criteria for issuance of a preliminary injunction were not met in this dispute between landlord and tenant. The court further noted that a preliminary injunction is designed to preserve the status quo and ordering the landlord to accept a reduced rent while the action was pending was not proper:

​

… [W]e find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff preliminary injunctive relief staying termination of the lease, and in further directing the plaintiff to pay rent in the reduced sum of $10,000 per month in lieu of the full amount of rent due under the lease. Although the plaintiff may ultimately be successful on the merits, it failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that the balance of the equities favor an injunction since its alleged damages are compensable in money damages and capable of calculation … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations regarding its inability to pay the full rent under the lease were insufficient to establish irreparable injury … . Furthermore, the court went beyond preserving the status quo, which is the essence of a preliminary injunction, and impermissibly rewrote the terms of the lease by directing that the plaintiff be permitted to pay only part of the rent due under the lease while it continued to occupy the premises … . Soundview Cinemas, Inc. v AC I Soundview, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03209, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER)/LANDLORD-TENANT (CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER)/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (LANDLORD-TENANT, CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER)

, ,

MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED.

​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to renew in this rear-end collision case should not have been deemed a motion to reargue and denied. Plaintiff presented new evidence which was not available at the time the original motion was heard. The new evidence was sufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion:

​

The new evidence included a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which had not been submitted to the court on the prior motion, as her deposition had not been completed until after the prior motion had been decided. Therefore, the motion was correctly denominated by the defendant as one for leave to renew his opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, this new evidence raised triable issues of fact as to the plaintiff’s comparative fault. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to change the court’s prior determination, and should have resulted in the court, upon renewal, denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Donovan v Rizzo, 2017 NY Slip Op 03154, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED)/RENEW, MOTION TO MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED)/REARGUE, MOTION TO  (MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED)

,

HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION.

The Second Department noted that hearsay can be submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion but, to raise a question fact, hearsay alone is not enough. Dindiyal v Dindiyal, 2017 NY Slip Op 03152, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION)/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY,(HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION)  

,

CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED.

The Second Department determined the confirmation of a bankruptcy plan did not have a res judicata effect upon an action by plaintiff bank to require the recording of a mortgage that was pending when defendants’ bankruptcy proceedings were commenced:

​

The plaintiff commenced this action in June 2013, inter alia, to direct the recording of a mortgage allegedly executed in September 2006 to encumber real property owned by the defendants … (the McKennas), and for a judgment declaring that that mortgage is superior in priority over other recorded mortgages on the property. On or about September 24, 2013, the McKennas filed a petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy … , … automatically stay[ing] this action pursuant to 11 USC § 362(a). By order dated August 25, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court reclassified the plaintiff’s claim, for the purposes of that court, from “secured” to “unsecured,” and terminated the automatic stay for cause as to the plaintiff so that the plaintiff could continue the instant action through the entry of judgment. * * *

While an order confirming a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan may constitute a final judgment on the merits … , the res judicata effect of a confirmed plan does not apply when a state court action concerning the validity of a lien remains unresolved at the time the bankruptcy proceedings were commenced … . Here, the instant action was pending when the McKennas filed their bankruptcy petition, and, therefore, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the subsequent confirmation of the amended Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan had no res judicata effect on the instant action. U.S. Bank N.A. v McKenna, 2017 NY Slip Op 03215, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RES JUDICATA, BANKRUPTCY PLAN, CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED)/BANKRUPTCY PLAN (RES JUDICATA, CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED)/RES JUDICATA (BANKRUPTCY PLAN, CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED)

, ,

DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the $900,000 default judgment in this Labor Law action should not have been vacated. The court noted that it had the power to overrule Supreme Court, even in the absence of an abuse of discretion. It has been held that a defendant’s reliance on an insurance broker to handle a lawsuit, as argued here, is a valid excuse for a default. However defendant’s principal, Mr. Gjonaj, received, over the course of years, papers sent by plaintiff’s attorney which should have alerted him to fact that the lawsuit was progressing in defendant’s absence. The court further determined plaintiff’s installation of video cameras was a covered activity under the Labor Law and his falling from a ladder was therefore actionable:

​

… [Mr.  Gjonaj’s.] assertion in this case that he believed his broker was forwarding the paperwork to the appropriate insurance carrier was unreasonable in light of his conceded receipt of the summons and complaint, two motions for a default judgment, a letter from the court and a court decision reflecting a $900,000 judgment against him. Surely Mr. Gjonaj knew that if his insurance company had retained a lawyer to appear for defendants, he and his corporations would not have continued to receive legal documents directly from plaintiff’s attorney and the court for over three years. The fact that [the broker] kept assuring Mr. Gjonaj “that everything in this matter was under control and that the claim was being handled by the proper insurance company,” does not help to establish reasonableness, objective or otherwise, on the part of Mr. Gjonaj, who should have known that everything was not under control after years of receiving so many legal documents from plaintiff’s counsel relating to the same lawsuit. Gecaj v Gjonaj Realty & Mgt. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 03109, 1st Dept 4-25-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED)/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED. FALLING FROM A LADDER WHILE INSTALLING VIDEO CAMERAS WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED. FALLING FROM A LADDER WHILE INSTALLING VIDEO CAMERAS WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY)/VIDEO CAMERAS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED. FALLING FROM A LADDER WHILE INSTALLING VIDEO CAMERAS WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY)/INSURANCE LAW (DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED)/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON ITS INSURANCE BROKER TO HANDLE A LABOR LAW PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED)

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