You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

Constructive Trust Cause of Action Did Not Accrue When Defendant Acquired the Subject Property (In 1995 or 1996), But Rather When Defendant , Who Had Properly Acquired the Property, Breached Her Promise to Transfer an Interest in the Property to Plaintiff (In 2012)

In finding the constructive trust cause of action should not have been dismissed as time-barred, the Second Department explained that a cause of action for a constructive trust accrues (1) when the constructive trustee acquires the property wrongfully, or (2) when the constructive trustee wrongfully withholds property which was lawfully acquired but was to be transferred:

A cause of action “for the imposition of a constructive trust is governed by the six-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 213(1), which starts to run upon the occurrence of the wrongful act giving rise to a duty of restitution” … . “A determination of when the wrongful act triggering the running of the Statute of Limitations occurs depends upon whether the constructive trustee acquired the property wrongfully, in which case the property would be held adversely from the date of acquisition, or whether the constructive trustee wrongfully withholds property acquired lawfully from the beneficiary, in which case the property would be held adversely from the date the trustee breaches or repudiates the agreement to transfer the property” … .

Here, the gravamen of the plaintiff’s cause of action for the imposition of a constructive trust is not … that the defendants wrongfully acquired the subject properties in or around 1995, or 1996, but rather that subsequent thereto, sometime in 2012, the defendant… breached her promise to the plaintiff that they would be equal partners with respect to those properties … . Barone v Barone, 2015 NY Slip Op 06102, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, ,

Service of an Unverified Petition in Violation of the Court of Claims Act Did Not Constitute a Jurisdictional Defect

Reversing the Court of Claims, the Second Department determined that service of a petition which was not verified was not a jurisdictional defect in a proceeding to recover money placed in escrow by the NYS Comptroller pending claims for the state’s appropriation and use of easements.

In accordance with the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, after the Attorney General determined that there was or might be a conflict with regard to the money allegedly owed as a result of the extended use of these temporary easements, the funds were deposited by the New York State Comptroller into a special interest-bearing eminent domain account (see EDPL 304[E][1]). Upon receiving notice of this deposit, the petitioner commenced this special proceeding for the distribution of the money pursuant to EDPL 304(E)(1) and Court of Claims Act § 23. The State promptly rejected the petition, noting that it was served without a proper verification. Within days, the petitioner provided the missing verification. The Court of Claims, however, dismissed the petition, concluding, inter alia, that the failure to comply with the statutory provisions requiring verification constituted a jurisdictional defect that mandated dismissal, without consideration of the merits. The petitioner appeals, and we reverse.

While the time limitations and service requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 have been referred to as “jurisdictional” … , the instant matter concerns a special proceeding pursuant to EDPL 304(E) for the distribution of money that had been deposited (see Court of Claims Act § 9[12]), and service of the petition without a verification did not constitute an incurable “jurisdictional” defect … . In this regard, the petitioner, upon notice from the State, cured the omission within a matter of days (see CPLR 3022, 3025[a]…). Moreover, considering that no substantive right of the State was prejudiced by the missing verification, even if the omitted material had not been supplied, the Court of Claims, under the circumstances presented to it, should have disregarded the technical infirmity pursuant to CPLR 2001 and 3026 … . Matter of Mazur Bros. Realty, LLC v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06149, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, ,

Court of Claims Must Determine the Interests of All Parties Named by the Attorney General as Potentially Entitled to Payment for a Taking by the State—Therefore a Claimant Must Join all the Parties Named by the Attorney General

The Second Department explained the procedure under the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) for determining how to apportion payment for a taking when there is a dispute about which parties are entitled to payment. Under the EDPL and the Court of Claims Act, the Court of Claims must determine the interests of all parties named by the Attorney General as having a possible claim. Therefore a claimant must join all the named parties in any action seeking payment:

EDPL 304(E)(1) … provides that when the Attorney General determines that there is a conflict with regard to the person or persons legally entitled to receive payment for the value of property acquired by the State through the power of eminent domain, he or she shall request the Comptroller to deposit the funds in an interest-bearing account “to be distributed as ordered by the Court of Claims on application of any person claiming an interest in the amount” (EDPL 304[E][1]). The statute further provides that the procedure to be employed in connection with such an application “shall be the same as provided in [Court of Claims Act § 23],” and that “[n]o judgment of distribution shall be made unless the court shall first obtain personal jurisdiction over all persons certified by the Attorney General as having or claiming to have an interest in the fund” (EDPL 304[E][1]).

The claimant argues, in effect, that Mazur Brothers, Inc. (hereinafter MBI), an entity that the Attorney General has determined has a possible interest in the subject proceeds, does not in fact have any such interest and that, therefore, the claimant was under no obligation to join MBI as a party to this claim. In advancing this argument, however, the claimant essentially asked the Court of Claims to assume the very fact that is the ultimate fact that must be proven, namely, that MBI has no interest in the money deposited by the Comptroller. Without jurisdiction over MBI, it would have been improper for the Court of Claims to grant the relief requested by the claimant in connection with this claim. Indeed, as the claimant appears to have recognized, its remedy, under these circumstances, lies in a special distribution proceeding pursuant to EDPL 304 … . Mazur Bros. Realty, LLC v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06119, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Failure to Enter a Default Judgment within One Year Justified Dismissal of the Complaint as Abandoned

The Second Department determined, pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), plaintiff’s failure to enter a default judgment within one year, and plaintiff’s failure to explain the delay, warranted dismissal of the complaint as abandoned. The court explained the reasons for the rule:

CPLR 3215(c), which is entitled “Default not entered within one year,” states, as relevant to this appeal: “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” The policy underlying the statute is “to prevent parties who have asserted claims from unreasonably delaying the termination of actions, and to avoid inquests on stale claims” … . Upon a showing of the requisite one year of delay, dismissal is mandatory in the first instance … . Failure to take proceedings for entry of judgment may be excused, however, upon a showing of sufficient cause. To establish “sufficient cause,” the party opposing dismissal must demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for the delay in taking proceedings for entry of a default judgment and that it has a potentially meritorious action … . Here, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of [defendant’s] motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her. [Defendant] demonstrated that the plaintiff had failed to take any proceedings for entry of judgment within one year after she defaulted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient cause why that branch of the motion should be denied. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Hiyo, 2015 NY Slip Op 06100, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Court Abused Its Discretion In Exercising Its Inherent Power to Grant a Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment More than a Year After the Judgment Was Entered (Five Years Here)

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have exercised its inherent power to vacate a default judgment more than one year after the judgment was entered (five years here):

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), a court may relieve a party from a judgment on the ground of excusable default, if a motion for that relief is made within one year after service of a copy of the judgment with written notice of entry (see CPLR 5015[a][1]…). In addition, even after expiration of the one-year limitations period set forth in CPLR 5015, “a court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice”… .

Here, to the extent the defendant sought to vacate the judgment against her pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), that branch of her motion was untimely because it was not made within one year after service upon her of a copy of the judgment with notice of entry (see CPLR 5015[a][1]… ) . Further, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the interests of substantial justice did not warrant vacating the judgment against the defendant in the exercise of the court’s inherent power … . Yung Chong Ho v Uppal, 2015 NY Slip Op 06132, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

,

Evidence of Post-Accident Elevator-Repairs Not Discoverable

The Second Department determined plaintiff, who was injured in an elevator accident, was not entitled to the post-accident elevator-repair records. Such records are only discoverable if there is a question about whether a defendant actually maintains or has control over an instrumentality, not the case here:

CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof” … . “[E]vidence of subsequent repairs is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case” … . An exception to this rule applies if a defendant’s maintenance of, or control over, the subject instrumentality is at issue … .

Here, the plaintiff moved to compel production of post-accident repair records generated during the three-year period between the date of the plaintiff’s accident and the date of the inspection of the subject elevator by the plaintiff’s expert. Yet it is undisputed that the defendant exercised maintenance and control over the elevator. Graham v Kone, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06111, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, ,

Striking Answer for Spoliation of Evidence Too Severe a Sanction—Spoliation Was Not “Willful or Contumacious,” Both Parties Were Prejudiced by the Loss, Plaintiff Was Not Deprived of Means of Proving the Claim

The Second Department determined striking the defendant’s answer was too severe a sanction for spoliation of evidence which was not “willful or contumacious.”  Plaintiff was injured attempting to use a tranquilizer gun. The gun was sent out for repairs after the incident and a portion of the gun was not found after a diligent search.  The sanction was too severe because both parties were prejudiced by the loss and the loss did not deprive plaintiff of the means of proving his claim:

Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence (see CPLR 3126…). “The nature and severity of the sanction depends upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the knowledge and intent of the spoliator, the existence of proof of an explanation for the loss of the evidence, and the degree of prejudice to the opposing party” … .

“The party requesting sanctions for spoilation has the burden of demonstrating that a litigant intentionally or negligently disposed of critical evidence, and fatally compromised its ability to'” prove its claim or defense … . However, ” striking a pleading is a drastic sanction to impose in the absence of willful or contumacious conduct'” and, thus, the courts must ” consider the prejudice that resulted from the spoliation to determine whether such drastic relief is necessary as a matter of fundamental fairness'” … . When the moving party is still able to establish or defend a case, a less severe sanction is appropriate …. Furthermore, where the plaintiffs and the defendants are equally affected by the loss of the evidence in their investigation of the accident, and neither have reaped an unfair advantage in the litigation, it is improper to dismiss or strike a pleading on the basis of spoliation of evidence … .

The determination of the appropriate sanction for spoliation is within the broad discretion of the court … . This Court will substitute its judgment for that of the Supreme Court only if that court’s discretion was improvidently exercised … .

Here, the Supreme Court, upon renewal and reargument, improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing the sanction of striking the City defendants’ answer, as the plaintiff failed to establish that the City defendants’ failure to preserve the subject tranquilizer gun was willful or contumacious … , or that their conduct deprived him of the means of proving his claim … . The City defendants’ repair of the subject gun prejudiced all parties, but does not prevent the plaintiff from proving his claim … . Morales v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06121, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

,

Supreme Court Abused Its Discretion by Vacating a Judgment Which Was Not Appealed by the Defendant

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Port Authority’s motion to vacate a judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff, Nash, was injured in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and was awarded a multi-million dollar judgment after trial. The Port Authority did not appeal the judgment, but sought to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), based upon the results of an appeal in an unrelated “companion” case (Ruiz), which held the Port Authority immune from such suits. Supreme Court granted the motion and the First Department reversed, explaining that the Port Authority’s failure to appeal could not be “remedied” using Supreme Court’s discretionary “CPLR 5015” powers:

The Port Authority made a strategic decision not to appeal either the liability or the damages determination in Nash, but to prosecute the Ruiz case instead. The Port Authority thereafter abandoned any claim that it was not liable to Nash, and represented to the Court of Appeals that a reversal in Ruiz would not affect cases like Nash’s that had been finally determined. Having failed to seek leave to appeal from Nash’s affirmed final judgment, the Port Authority ought not to profit from its misrepresentations to the detriment of Nash, whose judgment was indisputably final.

As Professor Siegel noted in the Practice Commentaries accompanying CPLR 5513, “[t]he time in which to appeal or to move for leave to appeal if leave is necessary is one of the most rigid in all of procedure. Its passing without the proper step being taken forfeits the appeal and puts an end to the matter . . .” (David D. Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 5513:1).

While a court under CPLR 5015(a) might possess some limited jurisdiction to vacate a final judgment — for example, where the court purporting to enter judgment lacked subject matter jurisdiction — that discretion must be sparingly exercised lest final judgments be subject to never-ending attack, undermining the sanctity and finality of judgments. As Justice Graffeo noted in her partial dissent, “We generally do not reward litigants for failing to assert arguments in a timely fashion — with few exceptions, claims not promptly advanced are deemed waived or forfeited and this proposition applies to the right to seek reversal of a judgment on the ground that it is erroneous on the facts or law (i.e., the type of argument made on direct appeal) . . . Simply stated, when a party allows its appellate rights to lapse, it forfeits the right to challenge any issue it could have raised on direct appeal” (22 NY3d at 227). The Port Authority’s motion to vacate the Nash judgment was predicated on an issue that had been litigated in Nash and would have been reviewable on appeal. The Port Authority ought not to be permitted a second bite at the apple at the expense of the elderly plaintiff, who suffered traumatic brain injuries over 20 years ago, and will now never see a penny of her $5.2 million final judgment. Nash v Port Auth of NY & NJ, 2015 NY Slip Op 06095, 1st Dept 7-14-15

 

Demand for Jury Trial Should Not Have Been Struck Despite Request for a “Declaration” in the Complaint—Crux of the Case Was a Request for Monetary Relief

The Fourth Department determined that plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial should not have been struck. Defendants attempted to recoup alleged overpayments made to plaintiffs for ambulance services by reducing payments for ongoing services. Plaintiffs brought suit challenging defendant’s right to recoup the alleged overpayments. As part of their complaint, the plaintiffs sought “a declaration that [defendant] is not entitled to offset or recoup any funds from [p]laintiffs.” The Fourth Department held that, despite the request for a “declaration,” the crux of the lawsuit was for monetary relief and the demand for a jury trial was therefore appropriate:

… [T]he court erred in granting defendant’s motion to strike their demand for a jury trial, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The question whether plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial turns on whether “the underlying claims set forth in the complaint are legal rather than equitable in nature” … . Here, we conclude that plaintiffs’ request for “a declaration that [defendant] is not entitled to offset or recoup any funds from [p]laintiffs” is incidental to their request for monetary relief. “[V]iewed in its entirety, the primary character of the case is legal” … , and “the complaint contains demands and sets forth facts which would permit a judgment for a sum of money only’ “… . Canandaigua Emergency Squad, Inc. v Rochester Area Health Maintenance Org., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06056, 4th Dept 7-10-15

 

, , ,

In the Absence of Prejudice to Defendants, It Was Not Error to Allow Evidence of a Theory of Liability Not Explicitly Referenced in the Complaint and Bill of Particulars

The Third Department determined evidence of a theory of liability that was not explicitly included in the pleadings and bill of particulars was not error. The theory was implicit in the pleadings and the defendants could not have been surprised by the related evidence. The court noted it would have been better had the plaintiffs moved to conform the pleadings to the evidence:

Generally, a party is limited to presenting evidence at trial that supports a cause of action or theory of recovery that was either pleaded in the complaint or asserted in the bill of particulars … . However, evidence concerning a specific theory or injury not mentioned in the bill of particulars may nonetheless avoid exclusion where such proof necessarily flows from the information conveyed in the pleadings and where the defendants should have been aware of the basis thereof… .

The contested theory of liability in this case is based on the allegedly erroneous interpretation of plaintiff’s February CT scan by Beatty (hereinafter referred to as the Beatty theory). It is worth noting that, because the complaint and bills of particulars do not contain an express articulation of the Beatty theory, the better practice certainly would have been for plaintiff to seek leave to amend his pleadings in advance of trial or at least have moved to conform the pleadings to the proof after the trial was underway. However, we nonetheless find that Supreme Court’s determinations allowing plaintiff to advance the Beatty theory at trial, including permitting plaintiff’s expert to offer testimony on the theory, do not constitute reversible error. In our view, the complaint— * * * which reference[s] the February CT scan as a basis for a departure from accepted medical practice — [was] sufficient to notify defendants of the Beatty theory and, as such, permit that theory of liability to be advanced at trial without prejudice. Simply put, we are unpersuaded by defendants’ position that they were not aware of the Beatty theory as a basis for a potential finding of medical malpractice. Boyer v Kamthan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05983, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

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