You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Supreme Court Erred When It Ruled Plaintiff Had “Defaulted” on Its Summary Judgment Motion by Failing to Appear for Oral Argument

The First Department affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment on the merits in a breach of contract action. However, the First Department noted that the alternative ground for Supreme Court’s ruling, i.e., that plaintiff had “defaulted” on its motion by failing to appear for oral argument, was not appropriate:

We find … that Supreme Court erred in finding that plaintiff had “default[ed]” on this motion. We fail to perceive the conduct that constituted plaintiff’s default. It was plaintiff who submitted the motion for summary judgment. Typically, a motion for summary judgment can be readily decided on the papers unless oral argument is mandated by the motion court as “necessary.” Nothing in the record before us suggests that the parties were on notice that oral argument was indispensable for resolution of plaintiff’s motion. Indeed, when Supreme Court ultimately rendered its decision on the record, counsel for both parties were present. Under the circumstances, Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law by disposing of the motion on the procedural ground sua sponte imposed by the court. All State Flooring Distribs., L.P. v MD Floors, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06751, 1st Dept 9-8-15

 

,

Error to Charge Jury on Comparative Negligence/Inadequate Awards for Pain and Suffering and Loss of Consortium

The First Department determined the jury should not have been charged on comparative negligence in this Labor Law 241 (6) action. Plaintiff’s decedent was injured when he tripped and fell over construction debris. Because defendant was obligated to keep the area clear of debris, and because there was no clear path plaintiff’s decedent could use, the comparative negligence jury instruction was not warranted. The First Department further determined that the award for pain of suffering ($100,000) was inadequate and the failure to award any damages for loss of consortium was against the weight of the evidence and rendered the verdict inconsistent. Pursuant to plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict, a new trial was ordered unless defendant agreed to a $400,000 award for pain and suffering and a $50,000 award for loss of consortium:

The evidence established that, as a result of his hand injury, [plaintiff’s decedent] developed, inter alia, nerve damage, painful symptoms consistent with reflex sympathetic dystrophy, anxiety, and significant limitation of the use of his left hand due to permanent contracture of the fingers. Upon a review of other relevant cases, we find that the award of $100,000 for pain and suffering materially deviates from reasonable compensation … .

The jury’s decision not to award damages to plaintiff (wife) for loss of consortium was against the weight of the evidence … . Plaintiff (wife) described significant changes in [plaintiff’s decedent’s] behavior after his accident and explained the impact this had on their relationship. On this record, the jury’s decision to award damages for pain and suffering, but none for loss of consortium, is inconsistent. Kutza v Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06753, 1st Dept 9-8-15

 

Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend the 90-Day Period for Filing a Note of Issue

In finding Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to extend the 90-day period for filing a note of issue, the Second Department explained the analytical criteria:

Once the plaintiffs were in receipt of the 90-day notice, they were required to serve and file a timely note of issue, or move before the default date to either vacate the 90-day notice or extend the 90-day period pursuant to CPLR 2004 … . Here, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs timely moved, inter alia, to extend the 90-day period. However, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s timely motion, the Supreme Court directed the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. This was an improvident exercise of discretion.

The determination as to whether to vacate a 90-day notice and grant an extension of time to file a note of issue lies within the court’s discretion, and this determination may be guided by the length of the delay in prosecuting the action, the reason for the delay, the prejudice to the defendants, and whether the moving party was in default before seeking the extension … . The Court of Appeals has observed that CPLR 3216 is “extremely forgiving” …, in that it “never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action based on the plaintiff’s unreasonable neglect to proceed” … . Amos v Southampton Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06700, 2nd Dept 9-2-15

 

,

Where the Complaint Alleged Only that the Driveway Was Defective and the Complaint Against the Company Which Renovated the Driveway Was Dismissed, the Complaint Against the Property Owners Should Have Been Dismissed As Well–There Was No Viable Theory for Liability on the Part of the Property Owners

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted defendant property owners’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law after the close of proof. Plaintiff, who tripped over the lip on defendants’ driveway, alleged the driveway was defective. After proof was closed, Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against the company which renovated the driveway, but denied the property owners’ motion to dismiss. Because plaintiff’s only theory was that the driveway was defective, and the property owners could only be liable for a hazardous condition caused by a failure to properly maintain the property, the complaint against the property owners should have been dismissed as well:

Dismissal of an action insofar as asserted against a contractor who performs work on premises does not mandate dismissal of the action insofar as asserted against the owner of the premises, since the owner has a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition … . Here, however, the plaintiff’s theory of liability was that the driveway was defective. …[T]here was no evidence that the lip of the driveway was in a hazardous condition. Therefore, it was inconsistent to direct the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against [contractor] while denying such relief to the appellants as homeowners, since no viable alternative theory of liability was asserted against the appellants … . Cioffi v Klein, 2015 NY Slip Op 06704, 2nd Dept 9-2-15

 

,

Causes of Action Seeking Monetary Damages Were Not Incidental to the Article 78 Causes of Action and, Therefore, Were Not Subject to the Four-Month Statute of Limitations

The Second Department determined certain causes of action in plaintiffs’ complaint should not have been dismissed because they were not incidental to the Article 78 causes of action which were time-barred.  Plaintiffs brought a hybrid proceeding (1) to annul a town resolution assessing taxes to pay for the town’s demolition of some of plaintiffs’ property which was deemed unsafe, and (2) seeking damages for destruction of property and interruption of plaintiffs’ business. The Second Department explained the criteria for determining whether causes of action seeking monetary damages should be deemed incidental to the Article 78 causes of action (and therefore subject to the four-month statute of limitations):

Pursuant to CPLR 7806, where a CPLR article 78 petitioner seeks damages as well as the annulment of a governmental determination, “[a]ny restitution or damages granted to the petitioner must be incidental to the primary relief sought by the petitioner, and must be such as he [or she] might otherwise recover on the same set of facts in a separate action or proceeding suable in the supreme court against the same body or officer in its or his official capacity” (CPLR 7806). “[W]here the thrust of the lawsuit is the review of an adverse . . . agency determination, with the monetary relief incidental, [the] Supreme Court may entertain the entire case under CPLR article 78” … . “Whether the essential nature of the claim is to recover money, or whether the monetary relief is incidental to the primary claim, is dependent upon the facts and issues presented in a particular case” … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the claims asserted in the first, second, and eighth causes of action were not incidental to the plaintiffs’ CPLR article 78 challenges to the Resolution and the special tax assessment … . Therefore, these causes of action were not asserted in connection with the CPLR article 78 portion of this hybrid action/proceeding, and were not barred by the four-month statute of limitations applicable to CPLR article 78 proceedings … . Hertzel v Town of Putnam Val., 2015 NY Slip Op 06708, 2nd Dept 9-2-15

 

,

Service by “Nailing” On the Day Before the Last Possible Day and “Mailing” on the Last Possible Day Was Timely

The Court of Appeals, affirming the 4th Department, determined that service by “nailing and mailing” the petition to invalidate a designating petition was timely. The petition was “nailed” on the day before the last possible day for service and was “mailed” on the last possible day for service:

We agree with the courts below that this proceeding was properly commenced in a timely manner. Here, there is no dispute that petitioner complied with the terms of the order to show cause by nailing the papers to the door of [respondent’s] residence on July 22, 2015 and mailing the papers to that residence by express mail on July 23. [Respondent] maintains that mailing on the last day of the statutory period was jurisdictionally defective since delivery inevitably would occur outside of the statutory period. However, where the instrument of notice has been delivered by another prescribed method within the statutory period, we have rejected such contentions concerning mailing … . Matter of Angletti v Morreale, 2015 NY Slip Op 06647, CtApp 8-26-15

 

Doctrine of Comity Precluded New York Action Attacking Bermuda Judgment

The Second Department determined Supreme Court, under the doctrine of comity, properly dismissed the complaint attacking a foreign country judgment. Plaintiff had appeared in the Bermuda case and made no showing of fraud or a public policy violation:

Generally, the courts of this State will “accord recognition to the judgments rendered in a foreign country under the doctrine of comity,” which is “the equivalent of full faith and credit given by courts to judgments of our sister States” … . Absent some showing of fraud in the procurement of the foreign country judgment or that recognition of the judgment would do violence to a strong public policy of New York State, a party who properly appeared in the action is precluded from attacking the validity of the foreign country judgment in a collateral proceeding commenced in a New York court … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the adjudication of his claims for compensation under employment and consulting agreements with his former employer in a winding-up proceeding that was litigated in the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda precluded the instant action against the employer, among others, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud. The plaintiff appeared in the Bermuda proceeding by submitting his claims to the Bermuda court, and made no showing of fraud or that a public policy of this State would be violated by recognizing the Bermuda court’s rejection of his claims. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint based on principles of comity. Basile v CAI Master Allocation Fund, Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 06650, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

Although the President of a Corporation Was Also a Member of Defendant Limited Liability Company, the Corporation and Limited Liability Were Not Shown to Be “United in Interest” Such that the “Relation-Back” Doctrine Would Apply to Allow Adding the Corporation as a Defendant After the Statute of Limitations Had Run

The Second Department determined plaintiffs were not entitled to amend the complaint to add a party after the statute of limitations had passed pursuant to the “relation-back” doctrine. Although the president of the party to be added, Madjek, Inc., was a member of Madjek, LLC, (a named defendant), that relationship alone was not enough to demonstrate Madjek, LLC, and Madjek, Inc. were “united in interest” such that one would be vicariously liable for the acts of the other. The court explained the “relation-back” and “united in interest” criteria:

To establish the applicability of the relation-back doctrine, a plaintiff is required to prove that: (1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (2) the new defendant is united in interest with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the commencement of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits; and (3) the new defendant knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiffs as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against it as well (see CPLR 203[b] …). Once a defendant has demonstrated that the statute of limitations has expired, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the applicability of the relation-back doctrine … .

While it is undisputed that the first prong of the test has been satisfied here, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the Madjek defendants are united in interest. Defendants are united in interest only when their interest “in the subject-matter [of the action] is such that [the defendants] stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other” … . Defendants are not united in interest if there is a possibility that the new party could have a different defense than the original party … . Here, the only fact that the plaintiffs established in support of their contention that the Madjek defendants were united in interest was that the president of Madjek, Inc., was a member of Madjek, LLC. This fact, standing alone, is insufficient to establish that the Madjek defendants are vicariously liable for the acts of each other and, thus, is insufficient to establish that the Madjek defendants are united in interest … . Montalvo v Madjek, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06661, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

,

False Arrest and False Imprisonment Causes of Action Properly Dismissed—City Demonstrated Police Had Probable Cause to Arrest Based Upon a Complaint by an Identified Citizen

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s complaint alleging false arrest and false imprisonment was properly dismissed, finding the city demonstrated the police had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff based upon allegations made by an identified complainant. Although accused of a shooting by the alleged victim, plaintiff was never indicted. Discrepancies in statements made by the alleged victim of the shooting did not negate the existence of probable cause to arrest:

To prevail on a cause of action alleging false arrest or false imprisonment, a plaintiff must prove (1) intentional confinement by the defendant, (2) of which the plaintiff was aware, (3) to which the plaintiff did not consent, and (4) which was not otherwise privileged … . Where, as here, an arrest is made without a warrant, “[t]he existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim” … . “Probable cause does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed” … .

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging false arrest and false imprisonment by submitting evidence demonstrating that the police had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. “[I]nformation provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of a specific crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest” … . The defendants’ submissions established that the complainant, an identified citizen, claimed that he was shot in the back and identified the plaintiff as the person who shot him. The arresting detective testified at his deposition that he observed the complainant’s gunshot wound and recovered a bloody T-shirt with a bullet hole from him. The defendants’ submissions demonstrated that the complainant identified the plaintiff as the shooter by name, provided the police with a physical description of him, and identified the plaintiff as the shooter in a photograph, all prior to the plaintiff’s arrest … . Nolasco v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06663, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

, ,

“Lack of Standing” Defense Waived by Not Asserting It In the Answer—“Lack of Standing” Not a Jurisdictional Defect—Sua Sponte Dismissal for “Lack of Standing” Not Warranted

In reversing Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff-bank’s unopposed motions in a foreclosure action, the Second Department noted that defendant homeowner had waived the “lack of standing” defense by not asserting it in her answer, and, in any event, “lack of standing” is not a jurisdictional defense for which the court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint was warranted:

The Supreme Court abused its discretion in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint for the plaintiff’s lack of standing. A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal … . Here, the court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. [The homeowner] had waived the defense of lack of standing by failing to assert it in her amended answer, which she withdrew in any event, the State waived the defense by serving and filing a limited notice of appearance, and the remaining defendants waived the defense by failing to appear or answer… . Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint by the court … . Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Holmes, 2015 NY Slip Op 06662, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

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