You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Hearing Required to Determine Whether Plaintiff Bank Negotiated in Good Faith During the Settlement Conference

The Second Department determined defendant homeowner had raised questions of fact whether plaintiff bank negotiated in good faith in a settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408 (designed to find a way to avoid foreclosure). The determinative motions heard by Supreme Court were therefore premature. The matter was sent back for a hearing on the “good faith” question:

CPLR 3408 requires the parties to a residential foreclosure action to attend settlement conferences at an early stage of the litigation, at which they must “negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, including a loan modification, if possible” (CPLR 3408[f]). During settlement conferences, “[m]otions shall be held in abeyance” (22 NYCRR 202.12-a[c][7]). Here, the defendant submitted evidence that the plaintiff may have failed to exercise good faith during the settlement conference phase of this action with respect to her applications seeking a loan modification pursuant to the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (hereinafter HAMP). Specifically, she presented evidence that the plaintiff may have violated HAMP regulations and guidelines, which would constitute a failure to negotiate in good faith as required by CPLR 3408(f) … . She also presented evidence that the plaintiff engaged in dilatory conduct, such as making piecemeal document requests, providing contradictory information, and repeatedly requesting documents which had already been provided … . Since the defendant’s submissions raise a factual issue as to whether the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith, thus depriving her of a meaningful opportunity to resolve this action through loan modification or other potential workout options (see CPLR 3408[a]), the Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine this issue prior to consideration of the plaintiff’s motion and the defendant’s cross motion. Onewest Bank, FSB v Colace, 2015 NY Slip Op 06321, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

,

Plaintiff’s Requests to be Deposed (in China) by Remote Electronic Means and to Use a Video Transcription of the Deposition In Lieu of Testifying at Trial Should Not Have Been Denied

The Second Department determined Supreme Court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s requests to conduct a deposition by remote electronic means and to present a video transcription of the deposition at trial in lieu of testifying. Plaintiff returned to China before depositions were complete and subsequent applications for a visa were denied:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) for a protective order directing that his deposition be conducted by remote electronic means. “Generally, when a party to the action is to be deposed, the deposition should take place within the county . . . where the action is pending'” … . “An exception to this rule is where a party demonstrates that examination in that county would cause undue hardship” … . Here, in light of the evidence that the plaintiff’s applications for a visa to return to the United States had been denied, and the evidence establishing that he presently was ineligible to be admitted to the United States, the plaintiff demonstrated that traveling from China to the United States for his deposition or independent medical examination would cause undue hardship … .

Further, the Supreme Court erred in, in effect, denying that branch of the plaintiff’s amended cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3117(a)(3) for leave to employ a video transcription of his deposition testimony at trial in lieu of appearing at trial to give testimony. The plaintiff met the criteria set forth in CPLR 3117(a)(3)(ii), (iv), and (v) … . Feng Wang v A & W Travel, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06312, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, , , , , ,

Flaws in Causes of Action Stemming from the Alleged Breach of a Joint Venture Agreement Explained

In an action stemming from the alleged breach of a joint venture agreement, the Second Department, in the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, went through each cause of action and, where dismissal was appropriate, noted the pleading failure. The joint venture cause of action did not allege a mutual promise to share the losses. The constructive trust cause of action did not allege a confidential or fiduciary relationship. The fraud allegations were not collateral to the terms of the alleged joint venture and no out-of-pocket losses were alleged. The tortious interference with contract cause of action did not allege the intentional procurement of a breach of the joint venture agreement. The accounting cause of action did not allege that a demand for an accounting was made. The Second Department noted that the motion to amend the complaint to cure some of the defects should have been granted. With respect to the criteria for determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where documentary evidence supporting the motion is submitted, the court explained:

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … .

In considering 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” … . A court may consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . When evidentiary material is considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion has not been converted to one for summary judgment, “the criterion is whether the [plaintiff] has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one, and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the [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”… . Mawere v Landau, 2015 NY Slip Op 06317, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, ,

Suit Against an Unincorporated Association Must Allege Every Member of the Association Ratified the Conduct Complained Of

In affirming the dismissal of a cause of action against unions brought by a probationary teacher who had been terminated, the Second Department noted that a suit against an unincorporated association must allege that the conduct complained of was ratified by every member of the association:

The Supreme Court … properly granted the union defendants’ cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them. Because the union defendants were unincorporated associations, and because the amended complaint failed to allege that the conduct complained of on the part of the union defendants was authorized or ratified by every one of their respective members, the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action against the union defendants … . Sweeny v Millbrook Cent. Sch. Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 06331, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

, ,

Plaintiff’s Use of a Partially Open A-Frame Ladder Did Not Constitute Misuse of a Safety Device—Directed Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff on Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action Was Proper/Plaintiff’s Apparent Failure to Turn Over All of the Relevant Medical Records Required a New Trial on Damages

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the court, after a jury trial, properly directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was using an A-frame ladder to weld a tank. It was not possible to open the ladder completely unless the ladder was perpendicular to the tank. Because using the ladder in a perpendicular position would have forced plaintiff to twist his body to weld, plaintiff placed the ladder against the tank in a partially open position. The ladder “shook” and plaintiff fell off it. The First Department held that, under those facts, the way plaintiff used the ladder did not constitute misuse of a safety device and, because Labor Law 240(1) was violated, plaintiff’s action could not constitute the sole proximate cause of the injury. A new trial was required, however, because the medical records supplied to the defendants pursuant to a subpoena were much less voluminous than the medical records brought to trial by the plaintiff’s medical expert, thereby depriving the defendants of the ability to fully cross-examine the expert:

A verdict may be directed only if the “court finds that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the fact trier could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party” … . The benefit of all inferences is afforded to the non moving party, and the facts are viewed in a light most favorable to it (id.). Here, plaintiff argued that there was no issue of fact necessary for a jury to resolve regarding whether defendants violated their obligation under Labor Law § 240(1) to provide him with an appropriate safety device to guard against the elevation-related risk. That is because, he asserts, there was no alternative safety device readily available to him, and he had no choice but to place the ladder in the closed position given the way the tank was situated. Defendants do not dispute that an unsecured ladder, even one in good condition, can give rise to Labor Law section 240(1) liability if the worker falls from it * * *

A worker’s decision to use an A-frame ladder in the closed position is not a per se reason to declare him the sole proximate cause of an accident … . To be sure, we do not disagree with the dissent that, in principle, placement of an A-frame ladder in the closed position “can constitute misuse of a safety device”…. . * * *

Here, plaintiff gave a specific reason why he used the ladder in the closed position. Plaintiff testified that using the ladder in an open position and twisting his body to face the tank would have been exhausting, requiring him to take frequent breaks, which defendants did not dispute. Indeed, defendants’ assertion that turning the ladder would have presented an issue of “[m]ere expediency or inconvenience” mischaracterizes the record. In any event, we are hesitant to adopt a rule that, in order to permit a worker to enjoy the protection of Labor Law section 240(1), would require him to take extraordinary measures to perform his work, when he has a good faith belief that doing so would cause him acute discomfort while drastically slowing his pace … . Noor v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06295, 1st Dept 7-28-15

 

Analytical Criteria for a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Where Plaintiff Submits an Affidavit/Analytical Criteria for a Motion to Amend the Complaint

The Second Department determined the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should not have been granted with respect to one of the defendants, and the motion to amend the complaint should have been granted. The court explained the proper way to handle a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action when the plaintiff submits an affidavit in opposition, as well as the criteria for a motion to amend the complaint:

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), “the court should 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” … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove [his or her] claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … . Unless the motion is converted into one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211(c), affidavits may be received for a limited purpose only, usually to remedy defects in the complaint, and such affidavits are not to be examined for the purpose of determining whether there is evidentiary support for the pleading … . ” [A] court may freely consider affidavits submitted by the plaintiff to remedy any defects in the complaint'” … * * *

CPLR 3025(b) provides that courts may grant leave to parties to amend or supplement their pleadings, and, “[i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . Here, the Supreme Court improperly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint insofar as asserted against [one defendant]. No surprise or prejudice resulted from any delay in the plaintiff’s motion, and the proposed amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently without merit insofar as it pertains to that defendant … . Tirpack v 125 N. 10, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06236, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

The Treatment of Pre-Answer Motions to Dismiss an Action for a Declaratory Judgment Explained

The Second Department explained how pre-answer motions to dismiss are handled in the context of an action for a declaratory judgment:

Generally speaking, ” [a] motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action prior to the service of an answer presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration'” … . As such, “where a cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court’s power to render a declaratory judgment . . . as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy’ (CPLR 3001; see CPLR 3017[b]), a motion to dismiss that cause of action should be denied” … .

Upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, a court may reach the merits of a properly pleaded cause of action for a declaratory judgment where ” no questions of fact are presented [by the controversy]'” … . Under such circumstances, the motion to dismiss the cause of action for failure to state a cause of action “should be taken as a motion for a declaration in the defendant’s favor and treated accordingly” … . North Oyster Bay Baymen’s Assn. v Town of Oyster Bay, 2015 NY Slip Op 06225, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the Parties Laid Bare Their Proof and Supreme Court Properly Treated the Motion as One for Summary Judgment Pursuant to CPLR 3212 Seeking Dismissal of the Complaint as Time-Barred

The Second Department determined defendant did not waive its statute of limitations defense, asserted in its answer, by not making a pre-answer motion to dismiss. Although defendant’s subsequent motion was ostensibly brought pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the parties laid bare their proof. Therefore Supreme Court properly treated the motion as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, seeking to dismiss the complaint as time-barred:

Initially, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant did not waive its statute of limitations defense, asserted in its answer, by failing to make a pre-answer motion to dismiss … . Rather, a statute of limitations defense may be asserted after joinder of issue in a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 … . Although the defendant’s motion was made pursuant to 3211(a)(5), the parties clearly charted a summary judgment course by submitting extensive documentary evidence and factual affidavits laying bare their proof … . Thus, the defendant’s motion is properly treated as a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred … . Meredith v Siben & Siben, LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 06120, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Instead of 3212, the Procedural Irregularity Should Have Been Excused under CPLR 2001

The Second Department explained there is no requirement that a statute of limitations defense be raised solely in a pre-answer motion to dismiss.  The defense may be asserted in the answer, and subsequently raised in a summary judgment motion or at trial. Although defendant’s post-answer motion was ostensibly brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 instead of 3212, the procedural irregularity should have been excused under CPLR 2001:

CPLR 3211(a) permits a defendant who wishes to raise a defense based on the statute of limitations to do so by way of a motion to dismiss. That section provides, in relevant part, that “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him [or her] on the ground that . . . the cause of action may not be maintained because of [the] statute of limitations” (CPLR 3211[a][5]). CPLR 3211(e) provides that the defendant may make the motion to dismiss before its answer is required to be served, or may include the defense in its answer and seek relief later. When the defendant does neither, the defense is waived.

“At any time before service of the responsive pleading is required, a party may move on one or more of the grounds set forth in subdivision (a) . . . . Any objection or defense based upon a ground set forth in paragraph[ ] five . . . of subdivision (a) is waived unless raised either by such motion or in the responsive pleading” (CPLR 3211[e]).

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, a defendant who wishes to assert the statute of limitations as a defense is not limited to asserting it by way of a pre-answer motion. The defendant may instead choose to raise that defense in its answer, and either move on that ground later in a motion for summary judgment, or wait until trial to have it determined … .

Here, the defendant did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, but raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in its answer. Then, after the note of issue was filed, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on that ground. Although the defendant denominated its motion as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, rather than as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, that procedural irregularity should have been excused under CPLR 2001, upon proper notice to the parties … . Wan Li Situ v MTA Bus Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 06130, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Second Voluntary Discontinuance Operated as an Adjudication on the Merits Requiring Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Third Attempt to Commence the Same Action

Before bringing the instant proceeding, the plaintiff had voluntarily discontinued two prior proceedings involving the same matter. Pursuant to CPLR 3217 (c), the second voluntary discontinuance operated as an adjudication of the merits requiring dismissal of the third action:

CPLR 3217(c) provides that unless otherwise stated, inter alia, in a notice of discontinuance, a voluntary discontinuance is “without prejudice, except that a discontinuance by means of notice operates as an adjudication on the merits if the party has once before discontinued by any method an action based on or including the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States.” In this case, the plaintiff voluntarily discontinued the second action, which was based upon the same causes of action as the first action, by notice of discontinuance. Under the circumstances of this case, where there was no legitimate purpose for discontinuing the second action, the second voluntary discontinuance by notice operated as an adjudication on the merits pursuant to CPLR 3217(c)… . Haber v Raso, 2015 NY Slip Op 06113, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

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