You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

The One-Year-and-Ninety-Day Time Limit for Bringing Suit Under the Public Authorities Law Is a Statute of Limitations, Not a Condition Precedent to Suit, and Is Therefore Subject to the Six-Month Extension for Recommencing a Suit Which Was Dismissed Without Prejudice Provided by CPLR 205(a)

The underlying medical malpractice action is against Erie County Medical Center Corporation, a public benefit corporation.  Pursuant to Public Authorities Law 3641, a notice of claim must be filed prior to the commencement of the lawsuit. Plaintiff had not filed a notice of claim. The action was dismissed without prejudice, subject to the terms of CPLR 205(a), which allows six months to recommence an action that has not been dismissed on the merits.  When the suit was recommenced, the defendant argued that the one-year-and-ninety-day time limit for bringing suit under the Public Authorities Law was not a statute of limitations subject to the CPLR 205(a) six-month extension, rather it was a condition precedent to suit and the (second) complaint must therefore be dismissed as untimely.  The Fourth Department determined the one-year-and-ninety-day time limit for suit under the Public Authorities Law was a statute of limitations, not a condition precedent, and the six-month extension provided by CPLR 205(a) applied:

It is well settled that CPLR 205 (a) does not apply when an act has to be performed within a statutory time requirement and is a condition precedent to suit (see Yonkers Contr. Co. v Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 93 NY2d 375, 378-379…). We recognize, by way of example, that the one-year statutory period for commencement of suit against the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation set forth in McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7107 has been held to be a condition precedent to suit not entitled to the tolling benefit of CPLR 205 (a) (see Yonkers Contr. Co., 93 NY2d at 378-379). As emphasized by the Court of Appeals in Yonkers, “Unconsolidated Laws § 7107 unambiguously allows an action against the Port Authority only upon the condition that any suit, action or proceeding prosecuted or maintained under this act shall be commenced within one year’ ” (id., 93 NY2d at 379). Here, Public Authorities Law § 3641 (1) (c) contains no similar express conditional language.

We note that CPLR 205 (a) has been held to apply to proceedings commenced under General Municipal Law § 50-i …, the language of which is identical to that of Public Authorities Law § 3641 (1) (c) at issue herein. We thus conclude that the express language of section 3641 (1) (c) does not support defendant’s contention that the one-year and 90-day period is a condition precedent and not a statute of limitations … . Benedetti v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04964, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

,

Court’s Equitable Power to Set Aside a Foreclosure Sale as “An Instrument of Injustice” Explained and Applied

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, exercised its equitable power to set aside a foreclosure sale which, it determined, had been made an “instrument of injustice.” The facts of the case, which include an extensive appellate history, defy adequate summarization here.  The court explained its equitable power to set aside the foreclosure sale:

It is well settled that, even after a judicial sale to a good faith purchaser, “[a] court may exercise its inherent equitable power over a sale made pursuant to its judgment or decree to ensure that it is not made the instrument of injustice . . . Although this power should be exercised sparingly and with great caution, a court of equity may set aside its own judicial sale upon grounds otherwise insufficient to confer an absolute legal right to a resale in order to relieve [a party] of oppressive or unfair conduct” … . Generally, such discretion, “which is separate and distinct from any statutory authority” …, is exercised where fraud, mistake, exploitive overreaching, misconduct, irregularity or collusion “casts suspicion on the fairness of the sale” … . It may also be exercised where “the price is so inadequate as to shock the court’s conscience” … or where the judicial sale has been “made the instrument of injustice” … .

While we agree with defendants that there has been no showing of fraud, mistake, exploitive overreaching, misconduct, irregularity or collusion, and the price is not so inadequate as to shock the conscience, we agree with plaintiff that, under the circumstances of this case, the judicial sale has been made the instrument of injustice. Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v GML Tower LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04952, 4th Dept 6-12-15

 

, ,

Florida’s Law of Restrictive Covenants Re: Non-Solicitation of Customers by a Former Employee Violates New York Public Policy by Favoring Employers at the Expense of Employees

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the Florida law on restrictive covenants re: non-solicitation of customers by a former employee violated the public policy of New York State.  Therefore the choice-of-law provision in the employee agreement was unenforceable.  The Court of Appeals went on to find that, applying New York law, questions of fact precluded a determination whether the non-solicitation agreement at issue should be enforced.  With respect to the public policy violation, the court explained:

… Florida law requires a party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant only to make a prima facie showing that the restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, at which point the burden shifts to the other party to show that the restraint is overbroad or unnecessary (see Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [c]). If the latter showing is made, the court is required to “modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect” the employer's legitimate business interests (Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [c]). In contrast to this focus solely on the employer's business interests, under New York's three-prong test, “[a] restraint is reasonable only if it: (1) is no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public. A violation of any prong renders the covenant invalid” … . Whereas Florida shifts the burden of proof after the employer demonstrates its business interests (see Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [c]), New York requires the employer to prove all three prongs of its test before the burden shifts … . Further, Florida law explicitly prohibits courts from considering the harm or hardship to the former employee (see Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [g] [1]). This directly conflicts with New York's requirement that courts consider, as one of three mandatory factors, whether the restraint “impose[s] undue hardship on the employee” … .

Additionally, under Florida law, courts are required to construe restrictive covenants in favor of protecting the employer's interests, and may not use any rules of contract interpretation that would require the construction of a restrictive covenant narrowly or against the restraint or drafter (see Fla Stat § 542.335 [1] [h]). In contrast, New York law provides that “[c]ovenants not to compete should be strictly construed because of the 'powerful considerations of public policy which militate against sanctioning the loss of a [person's] livelihood'” … . Brown & Brown, Inc. v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 04876, CtApp 6-11-15

 

,

In an Action Stemming from the Purchase of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, the Breach of Defendant’s Representations and Warranties Concerning the Borrowers’ Incomes, Occupancy Status and Debt Obligations Occurred on the Date the Contract Was Executed (Starting the Six-Year Statute of Limitations at that Point)—Defendant’s Obligation to Cure or Repurchase Did Not Constitute a Second Contract—Defendant’s Refusal to Cure or Repurchase, Therefore, Did Not Start the Running of Another Six-Year Limitations Period

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, in an action involving residential mortgage-backed securities, determined that a cause of action based upon breach of representations and warranties accrued on the date the contract was executed. A few years after the parties executed a mortgage loan purchase agreement (MLPA) and a pooling a servicing agreement (PSA) borrowers began to default, resulting in hundreds of millions in losses.  Upon investigation it was determined that the underlying mortgage loans failed to comply with the defendant’s representations and warranties about the borrowers’ incomes, occupancy status and existing debts.  The Court of Appeals held that the breach of the representations and warranties occurred when the MLPA was executed on March 28, 2006.  The action was commenced on the last day of the limitations period (on March 28, 2012), but was untimely because the contractual conditions precedent to suit had not been complied with as of that date. Plaintiff argued that the defendant’s refusal to cure or repurchase after notification in January, 2012, breached a second contract and started the six-year statute running from that point. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s repurchase obligation was not a valid agreement “to undertake a separate obligation, the breach of which does not arise until some future date…”.  “[Defendant’s] cure or repurchase obligation could not reasonably be viewed as a distinct promise of future performance. It was dependent on, and indeed derivative of, [defendant’s] representations and warranties, which did not survive the closing and were breached, if at all, on that date…” . ACE Sec. Corp. v DB Structured Prods., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04873, CtApp 6-11-15

 

, ,

Plaintiff Not Competent When Release Was Signed/Statute of Limitations Tolled by Plaintiff’s Mental Disability

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly concluded the release signed by the plaintiff was not enforceable, because the plaintiff was not competent at the time it was signed, and the statute of limitations was tolled by plaintiff’s mental disability. Plaintiff suffered a brain injury when he was struck by a car in 1991. A few months later plaintiff signed a release provided by an insurance adjuster in return for $5000.  The case languished for years and Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the case in 2014. The court explained the relevant law:

With respect to the release signed by plaintiff, “the burden of proving incompetence rests upon the party asserting incapacity to enter into an agreement [and], to prevail, plaintiff was required to establish that [his] ‘mind was so affected as to render [him] wholly and absolutely incompetent to comprehend and understand the nature of the transaction'” … . The incapacity must be shown to exist at the time the pertinent document was executed … . Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the toll for “insanity” provided by CPLR 208 is narrowly interpreted, the concept of insanity is “equated with unsoundness of mind” … and encompasses “only those individuals who are unable to protect their legal rights because of an over-all inability to function in society” … . The mental incapacity must exist at or be caused by the accident and continue during the relevant time … . Lynch v Carlozzi, 2015 NY Slip Op 04893, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

, ,

The Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Education Law Need Not Be Raised as a Defense—Here the Charges Against a Teacher Were Time-Barred—The Department of Education (DOE) Did Not Demonstrate the Charges Were Criminal (to Which the Three-Year Statute Would Not Have Applied)

The First Department determined the third set of charges brought against petitioner-teacher, alleging the teacher improperly obtained his daughter’s admission to NYC Department of Education (DOE) schools for which she was not zoned, was time-barred.  Although the three-year statute of limitations in the Education Law would not apply had the allegations constituted a crime, the hearing officer did not find the teacher’s conduct to be criminal. The court determined that the first two set of charges against the teacher did not justify termination (the penalty imposed) and remitted the matter for a lesser punishment. The court noted that the statute of limitations in the Education Law need not be raised as a defense:

Supreme Court did not exceed its authority in finding that the third set of charges against petitioner was time-barred. Education Law § 3020-a(1) requires that disciplinary charges against a teacher be brought within three years from the date of the alleged misconduct, unless the alleged misconduct constituted a crime when committed. Petitioner was not required to raise the statutory time limitation set forth in Education Law § 3020-a(1) as a defense in the disciplinary proceeding. Where, as here, “a statute creates a right unknown at common law, and also establishes a time period within which the right may be asserted, the time limit is . . . a condition attached to the right as distinguished from a [s]tatute of [l]imitations which must be asserted by way of defense” … . Accordingly, DOE had the burden of establishing that it met the time requirement set forth in Education Law § 3020-a(1) or that the crime exception to the time requirement applied … . DOE failed to meet its burden. Matter of Suker v New York City Board/ Dept. of Educ., 2015 NY Slip Op 04940, 1st Dept 6-11-15

 

, , ,

Tax Payments Made Voluntarily Cannot Be Recovered Under a Mistake of Law Theory/Supreme Court Should Not Raise a “Non-Subject-Matter-Jurisdiction” Defense Sua Sponte

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly denied petitioner’s request for a refund of real estate taxes paid re: optic cable installations located on private rights-of-way because petitioner had not protested the tax payments and made them voluntarily.  In addition, the court noted that the court should not have raised the statute of limitations defense sua sponte because the defense did not implicate subject matter jurisdiction:

… [U]nless subject matter jurisdiction is implicated, a court should not raise an issue sua sponte when a party is prejudiced by its inability to respond … . Here, because respondent Essex County failed to raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in a pre-answer motion to dismiss or in its answer (see CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; [e]; 7804 [f]), it was improper for Supreme Court to raise it sua sponte … . * * *

… [W]e find no reason to disturb Supreme Court’s partial denial of the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to demonstrate that it paid the taxes involuntarily. To recover payments made under a mistake of law, as in the present case … , a taxpayer is required to show that the payments were made involuntarily … . This requirement ensures that governmental entities have notice that they may need to provide for tax refunds … . Here, petitioner fully paid all of the relevant taxes and offered no proof that it did so under protest or that such payments were otherwise involuntary … . Indeed, petitioner did nothing to indicate that its payments were involuntary until nearly 18 months after the final contested tax bill was paid, when petitioner submitted its RPTL 556-b correction applications … . Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v Essex County, 2015 NY Slip Op 04899, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

, ,

Catheter, Although Deliberately Inserted During Surgery for Temporary Monitoring Purposes, Was a “Foreign Object” Within the Meaning of CPLR 214-a—Action Brought Within One Year of the Discovery of the Catheter (22 Years after Insertion) Was Timely

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Read, determined a catheter left in plaintiff’s heart after surgery in 1986 (when plaintiff was three years old) was a “foreign object.”  Therefore the statute of limitations did not start to run until the presence of the catheter was “discovered” in 2008.  Plaintiff’s complaint, brought within one year of discovery, was therefore timely.  The issue was whether the catheter could be considered a “fixation device” because it was intentionally inserted. If so, the one-year-from-discovery “foreign object” statute of limitations (see CPLR 214-a) would not have applied and the complaint would have been untimely. The Court of Appeals held that the catheter (which was to temporarily monitor heart function after surgery) was not a “fixation device” because, although it was intentionally inserted, it was not inserted to serve a “postsurgery healing function” and it was to be removed a few days after insertion. Thus the catheter was different in kind from a “fixation device,” such as a “stent” or a “suture,” deliberately inserted to serve a “healing function:”

Here, the catheter inserted in the left atrium of plaintiff’s heart performed no securing or supporting role during or after surgery. As explained by plaintiff’s expert, and uncontroverted by defendants, the catheters functioned like a sentinel, allowing medical personnel to monitor atrial pressure so that they might take corrective measures as required; the catheters were, in the words of plaintiff’s expert, “a conduit for information from [plaintiff’s] cardiovascular system.” Because the catheters under the facts of this case are therefore not fixation devices (or chemical compounds or prosthetic aids or devices), they are not categorically excluded from the foreign object exception in CPLR 214-a.

The question then becomes whether the catheters are analogous to tangible items like … clamps … or other surgical paraphernalia (e.g., scalpels, sponges, drains) likewise introduced into a patient’s body solely to carry out or facilitate a surgical procedure. We conclude that they are … .  Walton v Strong Mem. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04786, CtApp 6-10-15

 

,

Administrator’s Delay In Seeking to Be Substituted for the Decedent In a Lawsuit Justified Dismissal of the Complaint with Prejudice

The Second Department determined the estate’s administrator’s more than five-year delay in seeking to be substituted for the decedent as plaintiff in a lawsuit (CPLR 1021), together with the administrator’s failure to provide an excuse for the delay and demonstrate the action had merit, warranted the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice:

CPLR 1021 provides, in pertinent part, that if the event requiring the substitution of a party “occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made, however, such dismissal shall not be on the merits unless the court shall so indicate.” CPLR 1021 requires a motion for substitution to be made within a reasonable time … . The determination of reasonableness requires consideration of several factors, including the diligence of the party seeking substitution, the prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or the defense has potential merit … .

Here, the administrator’s failure to effect the required substitution until more than 6 ½ years after the decedent’s death and nearly 5 ½ years after he was appointed administrator of the decedent’s estate evinced a lack of diligence on the part of the administrator in prosecuting this action, which had been pending for nearly 8 years at the time the administrator sought substitution … . The administrator failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking substitution, which he did only after the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint … . Furthermore, the administrator failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action through the submission of admissible evidence, and did not rebut the defendants’ allegations of prejudice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice…  Alejandro v North Tarrytown Realty Assoc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04792, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

“Lack of Standing” Defense to Foreclosure Action Is Waived If Not Raised in the Answer or a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its foreclosure action, noting that any defense based upon plaintiff’s alleged lack of standing was waived because it was not raised in the answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint:

“A party’s alleged lack of standing to commence [an] action is a defense that is waived if not raised in an answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint” … . “Where, as here, the defendants in a mortgage foreclosure action waive the issue of standing by failing to assert the defense in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint (see CPLR 3211[e]), the plaintiff need not establish its standing in order to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” … . In this case, the plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law for the unpaid principal balance of the note … . In this regard, the plaintiff presented the subject mortgage, the unpaid note, evidence of [defendant’s] default, and evidence demonstrating that the unpaid principal balance remaining on the note totaled $434,382.89 … . In opposition, [defendant] failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Butler, 2015 NY Slip Op 04812, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

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