You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bank's taking timely steps to proceed to judgment after a default in this foreclosure action were sufficient to avoid dismissal of the complaint as abandoned:

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” However, “[i]t is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . Rather, it is enough that the plaintiff timely takes “the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference” to establish that it “initiated proceedings for entry of a judgment within one year of the default” for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c) … . “[A]s long as proceedings are being taken, and these proceedings manifest an intent not to abandon the case but to seek a judgment, the case should not be subject to dismissal” … . This is so even where, as here, the timely motion for an order of reference was subsequently withdrawn … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Traore, 2016 NY Slip Op 04022, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED)/FORECLOSURE (TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED)/ABANDONMENT OF ACTION (TAKING TIMELY STEPS TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT IN FORECLOSURE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO AVOID DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS ABANDONED)

,

PLAINTIFF’S SISTER WRONGLY IMPEACHED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT HER CRIMINAL HISTORY AND BAD ACTS, TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE VERDICT.

The Second Department determined the verdict in this personal injury case should have been set aside because of an evidentiary error. The injured plaintiff’s sister, who was also her guardian, was wrongly questioned about her criminal history and bad acts:

Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a court “may set aside a verdict or any judgment entered thereon and direct that judgment be entered in favor of a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law or it may order a new trial of a cause of action or separable issue where the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence [or] in the interest of justice” (CPLR 4404[a]…). “A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise” … . In considering such a motion, “[t]he Trial Judge must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected . . . and must look to his [or her] own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in permitting the defendants to impeach the credibility of the injured plaintiff’s sister on direct examination by questioning her with respect to her criminal history and prior bad acts … . “Indeed, it is well established that an adverse party or a hostile witness may not be impeached on direct examination by evidence of his or her criminal conviction[s]” … . Morency v Horizon Transp. Servs., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 04029, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE VERDICT, PLAINTIFF’S SISTER WRONGLY IMPEACHED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT HER CRIMINAL HISTORY AND BAD ACTS, TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE VERDICT)/EVIDENCE (PLAINTIFF’S SISTER WRONGLY IMPEACHED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT HER CRIMINAL HISTORY AND BAD ACTS, TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE VERDICT)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (PLAINTIFF’S SISTER WRONGLY IMPEACHED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT HER CRIMINAL HISTORY AND BAD ACTS, TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE VERDICT)

,

BURDENS OF PROOF FOR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE EXPLAINED; CRITERIA FOR RAISING AN ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined defendant did not meet its burden on its motion to change venue. The court noted that, although one of the arguments in opposition was not raised below, the argument met the criteria for an issue which may be raised for the first time on appeal. The court further noted that reply papers could not be used to meet the defendant's burden. The relevant law was explained as follows:

” [T]o prevail on a motion pursuant to CPLR 510(1) to change venue, a defendant must show that the plaintiff's choice of venue is improper, and also that the defendant's choice of venue is proper'” … . “Only if a defendant meets this burden is the plaintiff required to establish, in opposition, that the venue selected was proper” … . * * *

Although the plaintiff did not point out [the] deficiency in proof in opposing the motion to transfer venue, ” questions of law which appear on the face of the record and which could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture may be raised for the first time on appeal'” … . Pinos v Clinton Cafe & Deli, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 04035, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (BURDENS OF PROOF FOR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE EXPLAINED; CRITERIA FOR RAISING AN ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL EXPLAINED)/APPEALS (CIVIL, CRITERIA FOR RAISING AN ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL EXPLAINED)/VENUE (BURDENS OF PROOF FOR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE EXPLAINED)

,

CORRESPONDENCE ESTABLISHED AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

The Second Department determined a letter from counsel, together with other correspondence, established an enforceable settlement agreement of a real property dispute:

CPLR 2104 governs the enforceability of settlement agreements … . Pursuant to CPLR 2104, a settlement agreement is binding upon a party if it is in a writing subscribed either by the party or by his or her attorney. To be enforceable, a settlement agreement must set forth all material terms, and there must be clear mutual accord between the parties … .

Here, the material terms of the settlement agreement were set forth in a letter by the plaintiff's then attorney, who had apparent authority to settle the case on her behalf based on the plaintiff's actions … . The exchange of correspondence between the attorneys for the parties, in conjunction with the defendants' completion of the tasks demanded in the settlement without any objection by the plaintiff, was sufficient to constitute an enforceable settlement agreement between the parties … . Martin v Harrington, 2016 NY Slip Op 04027, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CORRESPONDENCE ESTABLISHED AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT)/CONTRACT LAW (CORRESPONDENCE ESTABLISHED AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT)

, ,

ERROR TO IMPOSE PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST AT THE STATUTORY RATE WHEN CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE INTEREST-BEARING DOWNPAYMENT WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR BREACH.

The First Department determined the down payment bearing interest at the rate agreed to in the (real estate) contract was the exclusive remedy. The court should not have awarded interest at the statutory rate:

The contract's terms, requiring that the down payment be placed in an interest-bearing account, so that the party entitled to the down payment would receive compensation for the deprivation of its use of the money in the form of accrued interest, were sufficiently clear to establish that interest paid at the statutory rate was not contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was formed and that the amount escrowed, including interest earned, should be the exclusive remedy to the wronged party … . Ithilien Realty Corp. v 176 Ludlow, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 04002, 1st Dept 5-24-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ERROR TO IMPOSE PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST AT THE STATUTORY RATE WHEN CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE INTEREST-BEARING DOWNPAYMENT WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR BREACH)/CONTRACT LAW (ERROR TO IMPOSE PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST AT THE STATUTORY RATE WHEN CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE INTEREST-BEARING DOWNPAYMENT WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR BREACH)/REAL ESTATE (ERROR TO IMPOSE PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST AT THE STATUTORY RATE WHEN CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE INTEREST-BEARING DOWNPAYMENT WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR BREACH)

COURT OF CLAIMS LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE MONEY DAMAGES ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE CLAIM.

The Third Department determined a prisoner's lawsuit alleging false imprisonment based upon mistakes in sentencing was properly dismissed because the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction:

“While jurisdiction reposes in the Court of Claims where the essential nature of the claim against defendant is to recover money, it does not lie where monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim” … . Here, we agree with the Court of Claims that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction on claimant's false imprisonment claim, inasmuch as his primary argument is that he is currently being confined unlawfully due to errors in resentencing and that any claim for related damages is incidental to this primary argument. Therefore, the claim for false imprisonment was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Jackson v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 03938, 3rd Dept 5-19-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT OF CLAIMS LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE MONEY DAMAGES ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE CLAIM)/COURT OF CLAIMS (COURT OF CLAIMS LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE MONEY DAMAGES ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE CLAIM)

,

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1).

The Second Department determined the evidence submitted by defendant law firm in support of a motion to dismiss the malpractice complaint based on documentary evidence was properly denied. The letters and affirmation did not constitute “documentary evidence” and did not utterly refute plaintiff's allegations:

“The evidence submitted in support of a [CPLR 3211(a)(1)] motion must be documentary' or the motion must be denied” … . To qualify as documentary evidence, the evidence “must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable,' would qualify as documentary evidence' in the proper case” … . Affidavits and letters “were not the types of documents contemplated by the Legislature when it enacted this provision”… .

Here, the letters … did not constitute documentary evidence for the purpose of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1)… ,  Similarly, the affirmation of one of [the law firm's] members was not documentary evidence for the purpose of this motion … . Anderson v Armentano, 2016 NY Slip Op 03690, 2nd Dept 5-11-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL MOTION TO DISMISS, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1))/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (CIVIL MOTION TO DISMISS, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1))/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL MOTION TO DISMISS, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1)

, ,

DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's toxic tort action on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiff alleged injury caused by mold in a building owned by defendant:

… [D]efendant was required to show, at a minimum, that plaintiff's alleged exposure to a toxic substance did not occur within three years of the commencement of the action … . If defendant exposed or continued to expose plaintiff to a toxic substance within three years of the commencement of the action, plaintiff could not have discovered any resulting injuries from such exposure at a time that would be barred by CPLR 214-c (2). Given that a plaintiff cannot discover the injurious effects of exposure to a toxic substance prior to that exposure occurring, and considering defendant's concession that plaintiff continued to be exposed to the mold at a time less than three years prior to the commencement of the action, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds.

Turning to the allegedly injurious exposure taking place more than three years prior to the commencement of the action, we find that defendant did not prove as a matter of law that plaintiff should have discovered his allergy and asthma conditions at a time that is barred by CPLR 214-c (2). Although plaintiff exhibited some symptoms, including skin and eye irritation and tightness in the throat, in the spring and summer of 2002, plaintiff also explained that such symptoms ceased when he would leave the building at the end of his shifts. Further, plaintiff averred that he did not seek medical treatment for these symptoms, miss work as a result of the symptoms or file a workers' compensation claim until late October 2002. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the symptoms that plaintiff exhibited more than three years prior to the commencement of the action were too intermittent and inconsequential to trigger the running of the statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 214-c (2) … . Malone v Court W. Developers, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03571, 3rd Dept 5-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/TOXIC TORTS (DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/MOLD (TOXIC TORTS, DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (TOXIC TORTS DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (TOXIC TORTS DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)

,

COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined Supreme Court properly refused to approve a settlement in a class action challenging a corporate merger because there was no opt-out provision for out-of-state shareholders. Because the suit included claims for damages, effectively prohibiting out-of-state shareholders from bringing actions in other jurisdictions would deprive them of a property right:

While the complaint seeks predominately equitable relief, the settlement would also release any damage claims relating to the merger by out-of-state class members. The broad release encompassed in the agreement bars the right of those class members to pursue claims not equitable in nature, which … are constitutionally protected property rights. Jiannaras v Alfant, 2016 NY Slip Op 03548, CtApp 5-5-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT)/CLASS ACTIONS (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT)/CORPORATION LAW (SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION, (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT)/SHAREHOLDER ACTIONS (SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION, (COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT)

, ,

DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF STEMMING FROM ITS CONTRACT WITH THE MALL; SINCE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ONLY ONE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ADDRESS THAT ONE EXCEPTION IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant American Christmas did not owe a duty to plaintiff in this trip and fall case. American Christmas contracted with a shopping mall to install Christmas displays. After the installation contract was completed, plaintiff allegedly tripped over electrical wires taped to the floor. There was evidence American Christmas put up stanchions to prevent people from crossing over the cords. Plaintiff alleged American Christmas was liable in tort arising from the contract with the mall because it launched an instrument of harm. The court noted that because plaintiff only alleged one of the three possible criteria for liability to third persons arising from a contract, the defendant was only required to address that single theory in its motion for summary judgment:

Here, American Christmas demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering proof that the plaintiff was not a party to its holiday display contracts with the Mall Owner, and that it thus owed no duty of care to the plaintiff. American Christmas also established, prima facie, that the one Espinal exception alleged by the plaintiff that would give rise to a duty of care does not apply in this case (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d at 141-142). …

Inasmuch as the plaintiff did not allege facts that would establish the possible applicability of the second or third [Espinal] exception, American Christmas was not required to affirmatively demonstrate that these exceptions did not apply in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Parrinello v Walt Whitman Mall, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 03481, 2nd Dept 3-4-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF STEMMING FROM ITS CONTRACT WITH MALL; SINCE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ONLY ONE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ADDRESS THAT ONE EXCEPTION IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/CONTRACT LAW (DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF STEMMING FROM ITS CONTRACT WITH MALL; SINCE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ONLY ONE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ADDRESS THAT ONE EXCEPTION IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF STEMMING FROM ITS CONTRACT WITH MALL; SINCE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ONLY ONE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ADDRESS THAT ONE EXCEPTION IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS (DEFENDANT, WHICH INSTALLED CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS AT A MALL, DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF STEMMING FROM ITS CONTRACT WITH MALL; SINCE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ONLY ONE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO SUPPORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT NEED ONLY ADDRESS THAT ONE EXCEPTION IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

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