You are here: / Civil Procedure

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)

, , , ,

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had adequately pled that the defendant law firm was equitably estopped from arguing an assignment, which was drawn up by the law firm, did not assign to plaintiff the right to bring a malpractice action against the law firm. The law firm had missed a deadline. Although the assignment could not be interpreted to include the malpractice claim, the equitable estoppel doctrine could be applied to prohibit the law firm from arguing the issue:

The motion court correctly found that the subject assignment, which merely transferred the assignor’s “entire right, title and interest in and to the [call] option contained in Paragraph 8 of” another contract, did not explicitly assign tort claims … . The assignment is not ambiguous; even if it were (and if we therefore considered parol evidence), an unexpressed understanding does not suffice … .

However, accepting plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to defendants’ motion as true, we find that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that defendants should be equitably estopped from arguing that the assignment did not assign tort claims. Contrary to defendants’ contention, estoppel can be based on silence as well as conduct … . Under these circumstances, where defendants drafted the assignment at a time when it represented … plaintiff, and that interpreting the assignment to exclude tort claims would mean that neither the assignor nor plaintiff, the assignee, would be able to sue defendants for malpractice for failing to exercise the call option in a timely manner, we find that the “special circumstances” exception to the privity requirement applies … . Deep Woods Holdings LLC v Pryor Cashman LLP, 2016 NY Slip Op 08156, 1st Dept 12-6-16

NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/LEGAL MALPRACTICE EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/CONTRACT LAW (ASSIGNMENT, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/ASSIGNMENT (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT)

,

UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY.

The Third Department determined Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion when it did not award prejudgment interest on a distributive award the wife had failed to pay. The matter came before Supreme Court when the husband moved to enforce the separation agreement:

“There is no automatic entitlement to prejudgment interest, under CPLR 5001, in matrimonial litigation” … . Rather, the decision to award prejudgment interest in a matrimonial action, as well as the rate and date from which it shall be computed, are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court … . Here, the record reflects that, following the execution of the separation agreement, issues arose regarding the accuracy of certain deeds and transfer documents prepared by the husband relative to the parcels of real property that were to be conveyed pursuant to the agreement. Such issues had not been resolved at the time of the husband’s motion to enforce the agreement, the wife claiming that certain inaccuracies still remained within the relevant documents. Although the wife’s obligation to tender the distributive award by the date prescribed in the separation agreement was not contingent upon the execution of the deeds transferring the real property, the wife explained that she had been advised by her attorney to withhold payment of the distributive award — which she had placed in a separate interest-bearing bank account — until the deeds were finalized and signed so as to ensure a contemporaneous exchange … . Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in choosing to award the husband all interest actually earned on the distributive award rather than prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001. Fori v Fori, 2016 NY Slip Op 08135, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

FAMILY LAW (UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY)/INTEREST (FAMILY LAW, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY)

,

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH NON-JUDICIAL SUBPOENAS PROPERLY GRANTED, ANY OBJECTIONS WOULD HAVE TO AWAIT THE ACTUAL QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING.

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2308 (b) to compel respondents to comply with non-judicial subpoenas was properly granted. Petitioner was charged by the State Liquor Authority (SLA) with improper conduct, i.e., shipping wine to customers in states that prohibit residents from receiving such shipments. Petitioner subpoenaed the SLA’s general counsel and several others on the SLA staff. It was petitioner’s position that shipping wine out of state had never before been deemed improper by the SLA. The court found the objections to the subpoenas, including an objection based upon attorney-client privilege, premature. Because the subpoenas sought only testimony, any objections would have to await the actual questioning at the hearing:

According to petitioner, the challenged subpoenas are intended to obtain information pertaining to, among other things, SLA’s past and present policies regarding out-of-state shipping, the standards applicable to the charges of improper conduct against petitioner and evidence related to penalty mitigation. CPLR 2308 (b) provides that, upon a motion to compel a respondent to comply with a non-judicial subpoena, the court “shall order compliance” if it determines that the subpoena was authorized. Here, it is undisputed that petitioner was authorized by SLA’s regulations to issue the subpoenas (see 9 NYCRR 54.3 [h]; see also CPLR 2302 [a]). Respondents nevertheless contend that their motion to quash should have been granted based upon their claims that the information sought by the subpoenas is privileged, irrelevant, beyond the scope of the administrative hearing, cumulative and burdensome. We affirm, finding no abuse of Supreme Court’s discretion in the denial of respondents’ cross motion … . Matter of Empire Wine & Spirits LLC v Colon, 2016 NY Slip Op 08145, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH NON-JUDICIAL SUBPOENAS PROPERLY GRANTED, ANY OBJECTIONS WOULD HAVE TO AWAIT THE ACTUAL QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING)/SUBPOENAS (NON-JUDICIAL, TESTIMONY ONLY, MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH NON-JUDICIAL SUBPOENAS PROPERLY GRANTED, ANY OBJECTIONS WOULD HAVE TO AWAIT THE ACTUAL QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING)

, ,

CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS NOT MET, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED BY MAKING A FINDING IN A MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER.

In an action stemming from the withholding of payment to plaintiff subcontractor, the Second Department determined the breach of contract cause of action should not have been dismissed, but noted that a conversion action cannot be based upon a breach of contract, and an unjust enrichment cause of action cannot coexist with a breach of contract cause of action.  Supreme Court had dismissed the breach of contract cause of action, finding the defendant had a legal right to withhold payment under Labor Law 220 because complaints had been lodged for failure to pay the prevailing wage for this school construction project. But since the Comptroller had not yet ruled on the Labor Law 220 complaints, Supreme Court should not have based its dismissal on them by making its own finding:

On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . While a court is “permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)” … , “where the motion is not converted to one for summary judgment, the criterion is whether the [third-party plaintiff] has a cause of action, not whether [it] has stated one, and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the [third-party plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it . . . dismissal should not eventuate'” … . A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may appropriately be granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . * * *

The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the third-party cause of action alleging breach of contract on the ground that the third-party defendants had a legal right to withhold payment pursuant to Labor Law §§ 220 and 220-b. Based upon the record before us, there is no indication that the Comptroller has rendered a final determination regarding the alleged Labor Law § 220 violation. As such, the court, in effect, determined the prevailing wage issue, which is within the exclusive province of the Comptroller, prior to a determination by the Comptroller … . Thus, the evidentiary material submitted by the third-party defendants, which demonstrated that payment to AGC under the subject contracts was withheld pending the Comptroller’s determination, failed to establish that any fact alleged in support of the third-party breach of contract cause of action was undisputedly not a fact, and failed to conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law to that cause of action. Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v Astoria Gen. Contr. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 08047, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS NOT MET, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED BY MAKING A FINDING IN A MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER)/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS NOT MET, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED BY MAKING A FINDING IN A MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER)

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