You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

The Martin Rule, Which Prohibits Actions Against Unincorporated Associations Unless the Actions Complained of Were Authorized or Ratified, Does Not Prohibit Actions Against Individual Association Members

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that, although the Martin rule prohibited the “defamation/tortious interference with business relations” actions against the union, the actions against individual union members were not prohibited.  The Martin rule bars suit against unincorporated voluntary membership associations (here the union) unless the actions complained of were authorized or ratified by the union. But the Martin rule does not bar suit against union members in their individual capacities:

… [T]he Martin rule (see Martin v Curran, 303 NY 276…) … bars all actions against an unincorporated voluntary membership association, and bars claims against the officers of such an association in their representative capacities where there is no allegation that the members of the association authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct complained of.

However, neither the Martin rule nor any other authority precludes causes of action from being asserted against individual members of the union defendants in their individual capacities … . In Martin, only the claims asserted against union members in their representative capacities as officers of the union were dismissed. Notably, the Court of Appeals specifically allowed the libel claims in that action to proceed against the same defendant union members, in their individual capacities … . Cablevision Sys. Corp. v Communications Workers of Am. Dist. 1, 2015 NY Slip Op 06873, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

Rejection of Answer Based Upon a Defective Verification Was Ineffective Because the Rejection Was Not Accompanied by an Adequate Description of the Defect—Supreme Court Properly Ignored Defect Because there Was No Prejudice to Plaintiffs

The Second Department affirmed the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to enter a judgment on the ground defendant failed to appear in the action. The plaintiffs had rejected defendant’s answer because the verification was defective. The Second Department noted (1) the rejection of the answer was not effective because the rejection was not accompanied by an explanation of the nature of the alleged defect and (2), because plaintiffs suffered no prejudice, Supreme Court properly ignored the defect:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3022, when a pleading is required to be verified, the recipient of an unverified or defectively verified pleading may treat it as a nullity provided that the recipient with due diligence returns the [pleading] with notification of the reason(s) for deeming the verification defective” … . Here, at the outset, the plaintiffs’ rejection of the defendant’s answer was ineffective, as it failed to specify the reasons or objections with sufficient specificity … . Moreover, as the Supreme Court properly found, the plaintiffs suffered no prejudice. Accordingly, the complained-of defect was properly “ignored” by the Supreme Court … . Gaffey v Shah, 2015 NY Slip Op 06779, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

“Due Diligence” Demonstrated—“Nail and Mail” Service Appropriate

In a foreclosure action, the Second Department determined plaintiff bank demonstrated “due diligence” in attempting personal service on the homeowner, such that the “nail and mail” service was appropriate:

Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where personal service under CPLR 308(1) and (2) cannot be made with due diligence (see CPLR 308[4]…). The term “due diligence,” which is not defined by statute, has been interpreted and applied on a case-by-case basis … . Indeed, the Court of Appeals has stated that “in determining the question of whether due diligence has been exercised, no rigid rule could properly be prescribed” … . As a general matter, the “due diligence” requirement may be met with “a few visits on different occasions and at different times to the defendant’s residence or place of business when the defendant could reasonably be expected to be found at such location at those times” … .

Here, the affidavit of the process server demonstrated that three visits were made to the homeowner’s residence on three different occasions and at different times, when the homeowner could reasonably have been expected to be found at that location … . The process server also described in detail his unsuccessful attempt to obtain an employment address for the homeowner … . Contrary to the homeowner’s contention, under these circumstances, the due diligence requirement was satisfied… . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Besemer, 2015 NY Slip Op 06806, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

,

Law of Plaintiff’s Residence Applied to Action Alleging Injury from Use of Plaintiff’s Image and Voice (Video Clip) on a Television Show

The Second Department determined New York law, not California law, applied to plaintiff’s complaint alleging injury stemming from the use of a video clip, in which plaintiff appeared, on a television show. The plaintiff resided in New York, and the video clip was edited in California. The complaint alleged violation of California law. The Second Department explained why New York law applied and further determined that the video clip did not violate New York’s Civil Rights Law (sections 50 and 51) because the clip was not used for advertising:

New York uses an interest analysis, under which “the law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in resolving the particular issue” is given controlling effect … . Pursuant to the interest analysis, “[a] distinction [is made] between laws that regulate primary conduct (such as standards of care) and those that allocate losses after the tort occurs” … . If the conflicting laws regulate conduct, the law of the place of the tort “almost invariably obtains” because “that jurisdiction has the greatest interest in regulating behavior within its borders” … . “[W]here the plaintiff and defendant are domiciled in different states, the applicable law in an action where civil remedies are sought for tortious conduct is that of the situs of the injury” … .

Applying these principles, the law of New York, where the alleged injury or damage occurred, applies. Although the alleged tortious conduct, the editing of the video clip, occurred in California, the plaintiff’s alleged injury occurred in New York, where he is domiciled and resides. Moreover, New York is the state with the greater interest in protecting the plaintiff, its citizen and resident. Sondik v Kimmel, 2015 NY Slip Op 06803, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

, ,

Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect, Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Not Warranted

The Second Department, in reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a foreclosure action on “lack of standing” grounds, noted that the “lack of standing” defense was waived by the defendants (not raised in answer), sua sponte dismissal was an abuse of discretion, and “lack of standing” is not a jurisdictional defect. The court explained:

“The Supreme Court abused its discretion in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint for 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 Supreme Court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Since the defendants … did not answer the complaint, and did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint …”. FCDB FF1 2008-1 Trust v Videjus, 2015 NY Slip Op 06777, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

, ,

Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply to a Horse Barn Used for Commercial Purposes Despite Presence of an Apartment in the Barn

The Second Department determined the “homeowner’s exception” to the applicability of the Labor Law did not apply to a barn used to house horses for commercial purposes, even though the barn included an apartment used by one of the horse farm’s shareholders. The court also noted that the “recalcitrant worker” affirmative defense should not have been dismissed “sua sponte” in the absence of a motion to dismiss it.  With respect to the homeowner’s exception, the court explained:

“… [T]he plaintiff met his prima facie burden of demonstrating that he was not performing work at a residence within the meaning of the homeowner’s exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) … . Among other things, the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendant described itself as “essentially . . . a business for keeping horses,” its owners were extensively involved in both keeping and racing horses, and approximately eight horses were boarded at the subject property at the time of the accident. The plaintiff’s submissions also established that when the defendant corporation originally purchased the subject property, the large barn was in a state of disrepair. The defendant renovated the large barn and added many improvements to the property, including multiple paddocks, an additional barn, and an “Equicisor,” a “72-foot circular automated horse exercising machine.” One of the defendant’s shareholders described the apartment in the rear of the barn as a part-time “office residence” where he might stay a ‘few days’ per week, although the amount of time he stayed varied depending on the season and the horse racing schedule. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendant’s boarding stable, which was used primarily for commercial purposes, did not constitute a residence within the meaning of the homeowner’s exemption …”. Rossi v Flying Horse Farm, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06798, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

,

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