,

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

 

Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds—Analytical Criteria Explained

The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s action on “forum non conveniens” grounds. The action concerned a lease and guaranty for property located in Georgia, but the property itself was not part of the dispute. Both parties were authorized to do business in New York, plaintiff’s principal place of business was in New York, the lease was executed in New York and the guaranty was executed in New Jersey. The fact that Georgia law was to be applied (by the terms of the contract) did not control. The court explained the analytical criteria:

Generally, “unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed” … .

“The burden rests upon the defendant challenging the forum to demonstrate relevant . . . factors which militate against accepting the litigation and the court, after considering and balancing the various competing factors, must determine in the exercise of its sound discretion whether to retain jurisdiction or not” … . “Among the factors to be considered are the burden on the New York courts, the potential hardship to the defendant, and the unavailability of an alternative forum” … .

The court may also consider the residency of the parties and where the transaction out of which the case arose occurred … . “No one factor is controlling . . . [t]he great advantage of the rule of forum non conveniens is its flexibility based upon the facts and circumstances of each case” … . Here, there is a substantial nexus to New York.

“Although the residence of a plaintiff is not the sole determining factor on a motion for dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens, it has been held to generally be the most significant factor in the equation” … . As the motion court acknowledged, in this case both parties are authorized to do business in New York and the plaintiff’s principal place of business is in New York. While the real property that is the subject of the lease and guaranty is located in Georgia, the actual property is not at issue in this case. In any event, the lease was actually executed in New York and some of the correspondence was sent to the nonparty tenant at a New York address. Moreover, the guaranty which is the subject of this litigation was executed in New Jersey and the defendant guarantor, a New Jersey corporation with its principal executive office in New Jersey, does not conduct any business in Georgia. While counsel for the nonparty tenant submitted an affidavit listing several potential witnesses who are located in either Georgia or Tennessee, there is no indication as to what knowledge these proposed witnesses have relating to the issues in this case, or whether they would even testify. Thor Gallery at S. DeKalb, LLC v Reliance Mediaworks (USA) Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06644, 1st Dept 8-25-15

 

, ,

Defendants Demonstrated They Were Entitled to Depose Nonparty Physician Whose Notations Expressed Skepticism About the Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries

The Second Department determined defendants were entitled to depose a nonparty doctor whose notations in medical records expressed skepticism about the plaintiff’s claims re: the cause of her injuries. The court explained the applicable law:

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty in possession of material and necessary evidence, so long as the nonparty is apprised of the circumstances or reasons requiring disclosure. The notice requirement of CPLR 3101(a)(4) “obligates the subpoenaing party to state, either on the face of the subpoena or in a notice accompanying it, the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required'” … . After the subpoenaing party has established compliance with the CPLR 3101(a)(4) notice requirement, disclosure from a nonparty requires no more than a showing that the requested information is relevant to the prosecution or defense of the action … . However, the party or nonparty moving to vacate the subpoena has the initial burden of establishing either that the requested deposition testimony “is utterly irrelevant'” to the action or that ” the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious'” … .

Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the … defendants satisfied the notice requirement. In a copy of the document entitled “Authorization to Permit the Interview of Treating Physician by Defense Counsel,” which was attached to the nonparty witness subpoena, “the circumstances or reasons” requiring the deposition of the nonparty were properly provided (CPLR 3101[a][4]). Since the … defendants met this minimal obligation, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to establish that the deposition testimony sought was irrelevant to this action, which she failed to do. Further, the … defendants demonstrated that it was relevant to the defense of the action … . Bianchi v Galster Mgt. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06568, 2nd Dept 8-19-15

 

,

“Nailing” of Petition on Next to Last Day for Service, and Mailing on the Last Day, Was Sufficient—Respondent, Who Initially Declined Designation as a Candidate, Could Not Subsequently Accept Designation as a Substitute Candidate

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the petition seeking invalidation of respondent’s designating petition was timely served by “nail and mail” because the nailing occurred on the day before the last possible date for service and the mailing occurred on the last possible day for service. The fact the petition could not have been “received” by mail by that date was not determinative. On the merits, the court determined respondent could not be the substitute candidate for a vacancy he himself had created by initially declining the designation. With respect to the service issue, the court wrote:

… [T]he petitioner must effectuate ” actual delivery of the instrument of notice not later than the last day on which the proceeding may be commenced’ ” … . In other words, the respondents must “receive delivery” of the order to show cause and the verified petition “within the [statute of limitations] period” … . That requirement operates irrespective of the court’s specific service directions under section 16-116 … .

Contrary to the view of our dissenting colleagues, we conclude that petitioner effectuated “actual delivery” of the commencement papers when they were affixed to respondent’s front door. It is well established that because “the [commencement] papers were timely affixed to the front door, the fact that the papers mailed were not received on [or before the statute of limitations date] was not a jurisdictional defect” … . Matter of Angletti v Morreale, 2015 NY Slip Op 06616, 4th Dept 8-19-15

 

, ,

Where the State Is a Potential Joint Tortfeasor Which Cannot Be Joined In the Supreme Court Action with the Other Defendant (Because the State Must Be Sued in the Court of Claims), the Jury in the Supreme Court Trial Should Be Allowed, If Appropriate, to Apportion Damages Between the Defendant and the State

Plaintiff was injured when a tree limb fell and struck her car while she was driving on a state highway. Plaintiff sued both the defendant (the property owner) and the state. However, the state could be sued only in the Court of Claims, so two separate actions were brought against the two potential tortfeasors. The Third Department, in a case of first impression, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, over a partial dissent, determined that evidence of both the defendant’s and the state’s liability could be presented in the Supreme Court trial and the jury should, if appropriate, be allowed to apportion damages between the defendant and the state:

“Under CPLR article 16, a joint tortfeasor whose culpability is 50% or less is not jointly liable for all of [a] plaintiff’s noneconomic damages, but severally liable for its proportionate share” … . The provision was promulgated as a modification of the common-law theory of joint and several liability, the purpose of which was to “remedy the inequities created by joint and several liability on low-fault, ‘deep pocket’ defendants” … . However, where potential tortfeasors are not joined in an action, the culpability of a nonparty tortfeasor may be imposed upon the named defendant if the plaintiff can show that he or she is unable to obtain jurisdiction over the nonparty tortfeasor (see CPLR 1601 [1]). Here, plaintiffs do not face a jurisdictional limitation in impleading the State as a codefendant, but instead cannot do so due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity … . Plaintiffs’ only recourse against the State is to pursue an action in the Court of Claims (see Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9). Likewise, if defendant is found liable in Supreme Court, it could seek indemnification from the State relative to its share of actual culpability as an additional claimant in the subsequent Court of Claims action … .

CPLR 1601 (1) is silent in regard to whether the State’s proportionate share of liability should be considered in calculating a defendant’s culpability in an action like the one at bar, and we have never decided the issue. * * *

Although we recognize the possibility of inconsistent verdicts as to the apportionment of fault in Supreme Court and in the Court of Claims, we note that this risk arises regardless of whether or not the jury is entitled to apportion liability between defendant and the State … . Given the statutory purpose of CPLR 1601 (1) to “limit[] a joint tortfeasor’s liability for noneconomic losses to its proportionate share, provided that it is 50% or less at fault” …, we find that juries in this scenario should be given the option to, if appropriate, apportion fault between defendant and the State. Artibee v Home Place Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06556, 3rd Dept 8-13-15