,

FALURE TO COMPLY WITH THE MODE OF SERVICE SPECIFIED IN AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DEPRIVES THE COURT OF JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not comply with the mode of service specified in the order to show cause and did not give proper notice of the motion. Therefore, Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to hear it:

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and to restore the action to the active calendar. The mode of service provided for in an order to show cause is jurisdictional in nature and must be literally followed … . The failure to give proper notice of a motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the motion … . Here, since the plaintiff failed to comply with the directives in the order to show cause, the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the motion … . Sosa v Gonzaga, 2026 NY Slip Op 05337, Second Dept 9-16-26

Practice Point: A party’s failure to comply with the mode of service specified in an order to show cause deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the motion.

 

, ,

A MOTION TO RENEW A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IS THE APPROPRIATE VEHICLE FOR ADDRESSING A CHANGE IN THE LAW; HERE THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 30, 2022, WARRANTED VACATING THE MAY 15, 2019, ORDER, GRANTING THE MOTION TO RENEW AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a motion to renew a prior summary judgment motion was the proper vehicle for asserting the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) which became effective December 30, 2022. The motion for summary judgment was denied May 15, 2019:

35 Pleasure moved for leave to renew its prior cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and on its counterclaim pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record the mortgage. In support of its motion, 35 Pleasure argued that the plaintiff’s commencement and voluntary discontinuance of the 2011 action rendered this action untimely under FAPA, which constituted a change in the law. The plaintiff opposed 35 Pleasure’s motion, contending, inter alia, that FAPA should not be given retroactive application, and cross-moved, among other things, to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. *  *  *

A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]). “Therefore, a motion for leave to renew is the appropriate vehicle for seeking relief from a prior order based on a change in the law … . * * *

The six-year statute of limitations for this action began to run in December 2011, when the plaintiff commenced the 2011 action and elected in the complaint to call due the entire amount secured by the mortgage … . In light of the statutory amendments enacted by FAPA, the voluntary discontinuance of the 2011 action did not de-accelerate the mortgage debt, and, thus, the applicable limitations period expired in December 2017. This action, which was commenced in May 2018, therefore, was untimely … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s contentions challenging FAPA’s retroactive application and constitutionality are without merit … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Conforti, 2026 NY Slip Op 05262, Second Dept 9-16-26

Practice Point: A motion to renew is the appropriate vehicle for addressing a change in the law, here the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). The cross-motion for summary judgment was denied in 2019. The FAPA became effective December 20, 2022. The motion to renew the cross-motion for summary judgment was denied by Supreme Court in 2024, reversed in 2026.

Similar issues and results in Pryce v Nationstar Mtge., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 05331, Second Dept 9-16-26

 

,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID 90-DAY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216(A); THEREFORE THE JUDGE COULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the conditional order of dismissal did not serve as a 90-day notice because it did not state that failure to comply with the notice will serve as a basis for dismissal for failure to prosecute. Therefore the judge did not have the authority, sua sponte, to dismiss the complaint:

“CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with” … . As relevant here, an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) “‘unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him [or her] for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … . “While a conditional order of dismissal may have the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216” … , here, the conditional order of dismissal was defective in that it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice will serve as a basis for a motion by the court to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute … . “In the absence of proper notice, the court was without power to dismiss the action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the conditional order of dismissal” … . Under these circumstances, the action should have been restored to the active calendar. Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Adekoje, 2026 NY Slip Op 05315. Second Dept 9-16-26

Practice Point: Although a conditional order of dismissal can serve as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, to do so the conditional order of dismissal must meet all the content requirements mandated by CPLR 3216, including informing the plaintiff that the failure to comply will result in dismissal of the complaint.

 

, ,

THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AND REINSTATE COUNTERCLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have reinstated defendants’ counterclaims which were rejected by the jury after a lengthy trial. The First Department explained the criteria for setting aside a jury verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404(a):

Defendants are not entitled to reinstatement of their counterclaims, which were each unequivocally rejected by the jury after a lengthy trial. Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a court may set aside a jury verdict, or order a new trial, where “the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence,” or “in the interest of justice.” In making this determination, the court must proceed with caution, because “in the absence of indications that substantial justice has not been done, a successful litigant is entitled to the benefits of a favorable jury verdict” … . Thus, a verdict should only be set aside if the evidence is so in favor of the moving party that the verdict “could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … , or in the interests of justice due to “errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise” … . Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP, 2026 NY Slip Op 05231, First Dept 9-3-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for setting aside a jury verdict. Here the jury’s rejection of defendants’ counterclaims should not have been disturbed.​

 

, , , ,

IN THIS RENT RESET ARBITRATION, THE UMPIRE COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY WITH LANDLORD’S COUNSEL, CREATING THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY; THE AWARD WAS THEREFORE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined communications between an umpire and the landlord’s counsel created the appearance of impropriety requiring the vacation of the arbitration award in the rent reset proceeding:

… [T]he tenants exercised their second extension option under the lease … . The parties attempted to negotiate a new annual net rent, but upon reaching an impasse, they proceeded to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (the AAA). That arbitration concluded with a one-week hearing that resulted in a final award largely in the landlord’s favor. * * *

… [T]he umpire created an appearance of impropriety when he directly communicated with the landlord’s counsel about a paid offer to serve as a neutral umpire in the [another arbitration] and did so without including the tenants in the conversation. Further, the umpire’s subsequent attempt to remedy this issue with a disclosure to the tenants failed to cure his misconduct. Indeed, the disclosure was incomplete as it was the landlord’s counsel, not the umpire, who informed the tenants of the direct communication with the landlord’s counsel. To compound matters, the umpire then attempted to bargain with the tenants — offering to trade his rejection of the offer in exchange for the cooperative withdrawing its recusal application. Ultimately, although he did eventually decline the offer, the umpire’s actions irreversibly and improperly implicated the “integrity of the process” … . Matter of 57th & 6th Ground LLC v Carnegie House Tenants Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 05230, First Dept 9-3-26

Practice Point: In this arbitration of a rent reset, the umpire communicated directly with landlord’s counsel, creating the appearance of impropriety. The award was therefore vacated.

 

, ,

HERE IN THIS BUS-TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE, THE DEFENDANTS ADMITTED THE BUS DRIVER WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; A NEGLIGENT-HIRING-AND-RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION, THEREFORE, WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFFS; THE PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE DRIVER’S PERSONNEL FILE OR THE POLICY MANUAL FOR DRIVER RETENTION AND TRAINING BECAUSE BECAUSE THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT RELEVANT TO THE EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY UNDER RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this bus-traffic-accident case, determined that neither the bus driver’s personnel file nor the policy manual relating to the retention and training of the bus driver were discoverable. Those records would only be relevant to an action for negligent hiring and retention, which (generally) is not available when the suit against the driver’s employer is based upon respondeat superior:

Generally, “where an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment, the employer is liable for the employee’s negligence under a theory of respondeat superior, and a plaintiff may not proceed with a cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring and retention” … . Thus, since here, the defendants admit that [the driver] was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, neither his personnel file nor the portions of the defendants’ policy manual relating to the retention or training of [the driver] are discoverable … . In addition, the plaintiff failed to show that any alleged remaining portions of the policy manual “would yield matter material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action” … . Lewis v New York City Tr. Auth., 2026 NY Slip Op 05175, Second Dept 9-2-26

​Practice Point: Where the employer admits the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, the employer is liable for the negligence of the employee under a theory of respondeat superior. Generally, in that circumstance a negligent hiring and retention cause of action is not available to the plaintiff.

 

, ,

ELECTRONIC FILING OF A MOTION TO CONFIRM A REFEREE’S REPORT AND FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SERVICE METHOD CODIFIED IN RPAPL 1371(2); HERE THE IMPROPER SERVICE WAS A BAR TO ENTRY OF THE DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the electronic filing of the motion to confirm the referee’s report and for leave to file a deficiency judgment was not proper service pursuant to RPAPL 1371(2). The improper service constituted a complete bar to the entry of a deficiency judgment:

The plaintiff … moved to confirm a referee’s report of sale and for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against Newman in the sum of $1,222,732.14. … Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion. A judgment was entered … in favor of the plaintiff … . …

RPAPL 1371(2) specifies the manner in which notice of such motions shall be served, and upon whom the notice shall be served, as follows: “Simultaneously with the making of a motion for an order confirming the sale, . . . the party to whom such residue shall be owing may make a motion in the action for leave to enter a deficiency judgment upon notice to the party against whom such judgment is sought or the attorney who shall have appeared for such party in such action. Such notice shall be served personally or in such other manner as the court may direct.”

Here, the plaintiff’s electronic filing of the motion papers on the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System did not constitute proper service in accordance with RPAPL 1371(2) … Consequently, “‘this constitutes a complete bar to the entry of a deficiency judgment'” … . 11-36 31st Ave. Lender, LLC v RM Newman, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 05151, Second Dept 9-2-26

Practice Point: Electronic filing of a motion to confirm a referee’s report and for leave to enter a default judgment is improper service. The correct method of service is codified in RPAPL 1371(2).

 

, , , ,

HERE THE MEDICAL RECORDS SUGGESTED INJURY ATTRIBUTABLE TO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SO THE HOSPITAL WAS DEEMED TO HAVE HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE MALPRACTICE CLAIM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED NUNC PRO TUNC SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to deem the late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc should have been granted in this medical malpractice action:

On August 31, 2015, the plaintiff, Estefani Tenezaca, gave birth to the infant A.J.L. (hereinafter the infant) at Elmhurst Hospital Center (hereinafter Elmhurst), a facility controlled by the defendant. The infant was born prematurely at 30 weeks gestation and was treated at Elmhurst until September 16, 2015, when she was transferred to another hospital.

In July 2016, the plaintiff, as parent and natural guardian of the infant, served a notice of claim on the defendant, alleging, among other things, medical malpractice in the defendant’s treatment of the infant. * * *

The plaintiff’s experts opined that the infant suffered a massive bilateral parenchymal hemorrhage as a result of the treatment documented in Elmhurst’s records. * * *

Inasmuch as the Elmhurst records, upon independent review, suggested injury attributable to medical malpractice, those records provided the defendant with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … .  Additionally, the plaintiff made an initial showing that the defendant would not suffer any prejudice by the delay in serving a notice of claim, and the defendant failed to rebut that showing with particularized indicia of prejudice … . The plaintiff also established a reasonable excuse for her failure to timely serve a notice of claim … . Tenezaca v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 05208, Second Dept 9-2-25

Practice Point: In this medical malpractice action plaintiff moved to deem the late notice of claim timely served. The medical records suggested injury attributable to malpractice. Therefore the hospital was deemed to have had timely notice of the nature of the claim.

 

, ,

THE PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE VILLAGE’S SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHICH ALLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION OF 98 APARTMENTS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the petitioners did not have standing to challenge the negative declaration issued by the village respondents pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The village thereby approved the construction 98 apartment units. The Second Department explained the criteria for standing in this context:

“Standing to bring a SEQRA challenge is a threshold issue, and the burden of establishing standing is on the party seeking review of governmental action on the basis of alleged procedural and substantive SEQRA violations” … . “To establish standing under SEQRA, a petitioner must show (1) an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and (2) that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA” … . “Economic injury is not by itself within the zone of interests which SEQRA seeks to protect” … .

Here, the petitioners alleged environmental injuries that either were economic in nature … , were not different from those that would be suffered by the public at large … , or were too speculative and conjectural to demonstrate an actual injury-in-fact … . Such allegations are insufficient to confer standing to challenge the adequacy of the Cedarhurst respondents’ environmental review of the overlay district under SEQRA. Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, their property was not sufficiently close in proximity to the proposed development so as to confer a presumption of an injury-in-fact as an adjacent property owner … . Board of Educ. of the Lawrence Union Free Sch. Dist. v Incorporated Vil. of Cedarhurst, 2026 NY Slip Op 05154, Second Dept 9-2-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the criteria for standing to challenge a municipality’s SEQRA negative declaration. Here the village approved the construction of 98 apartments and the petitioners did not have standing to challenge the approval.

 

, ,

THE JURY VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION TRIAL WAS IRREVOCABLY INCONSISTENT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the jury verdict in this rear-end collision case was “irrevocably inconsistent” and must be set aside. The only nonnegligent explanation offered by the defendant was that he suffered a medical emergency just before the collision. On the verdict form the jury answered “no” to the question whether defendant suffered a medical emergency. But the jury also answered “no” to the question whether defendant was negligent in the operation the vehicle:

Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial. “Where, as here, the jury verdict ‘is irreconcilably inconsistent, that verdict must be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence'” … . Although the plaintiff did not object to the jury verdict as inconsistent prior to the discharge of the jury, thus failing to preserve an issue of law … “‘there is no preservation requirement for weight of the evidence review'” … .

Here, since the only nonnegligent explanation for the accident provided by the defendants was an alleged sudden medical emergency, it was irreconcilably inconsistent for the jury to answer “No” when asked whether the decedent “experience[d] a sudden, unforeseen medical emergency such as a seizure prior to the accident … , and was his operation of the vehicle reasonable under the circumstances,” while also responding “No” when asked whether the decedent was “negligent in the operation of the vehicle.” Accordingly, there must be a new trial on the issue of liability. Pitt v Rosenblatt, 2026 NY Slip Op 05200, Second Dept 9-2-26

​Practice Point: Here the “irrevocably inconsistent” jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence and should have been set aside. The issue need not be preserved for appeal.