You are here: / Civil Procedure

Failure to Empanel the First Six Jurors Chosen by the Parties Justified Setting Aside the Verdict

The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s setting aside the verdict in a medical malpractice case after the jury had found “no cause for action.”  A rule in the Third Judicial District allowed the clerk to randomly select the jurors and alternates.  The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict because the first six jurors chosen by the parties were not empanelled by the clerk, as required by CPLR 4105.  Under the CPLR jurors 1 through 6 should have constituted the jury and jurors 7 and 8 should have been designated the alternate jurors. The clerk selected jurors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8.  The Third Department perceived no abuse of discretion in setting aside the verdict:

After having determined that its application of the Third Judicial District rule contravened plaintiff’s substantial right to empanel the first six jurors that had been selected by the parties, pursuant to the “mandatory procedure” set forth in CPLR 4105, Supreme Court exercised its discretion and granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and order a new trial in the interest of justice. In the absence of evidence that the court abused such discretion, we will not disturb Supreme Court’s determination in that regard … . Piacente v Bernstein, 2015 NY Slip Op 03009, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

,

Venue Was Not Proper—However, Because the Party Seeking the Change of Venue Did Not Comply With the Statutory Procedure, Whether to Grant a Change of Venue Was Discretionary—In the Exercise of Discretion, Change of Venue Was Properly Denied

Respondent law firm filed a default judgment prematurely (re: attorney’s fees) and immediately took steps freeze petitioner’s assets. Petitioner started the instant proceeding in Ulster County pursuant to CPLR 5240 seeking a protective order and vacation of all the enforcement devices used by the law firm.  The law firm made a cross-motion for a change of venue. Supreme Court denied the cross-motion, found that the law firm had engaged in frivolous conduct, directed the law firm to pay petitioner costs and counsel fees, and ordered the managing attorney of the law firm to complete eight hours of continuing legal education (CLE) in civil practice.  The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court, with the exception of the CLE sanction, which Supreme Court did not have the authority to order. The bulk of the decision is devoted to a discussion of the law surrounding a change of venue.  Supreme Court denied the change of venue cross-motion “as of right,” finding that Ulster County was the proper venue for the CPLR 5240 proceeding brought by the petitioner.  The Third Department disagreed, ruling that Ulster County was not the proper venue because the law firm, the respondent in the proceeding, did not have an office in Ulster County as required by the relevant provisions of the CPLR. But, after an extensive analysis, the Third Department concluded the cross-motion to change venue was properly denied as an exercise of discretion. Because the respondent did not follow the statutory procedure (CPLR 511) for seeking a change of venue (no demand for such relief was served before the cross-motion was made), the cross-motion was addressed to Supreme Court’s discretion. CPLR 510 allows a change of venue where “(1) the designated county is not a proper county, (2) “there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper county” or (3) “the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change”… .  Although the first criterium was met, the other two were not. Denial of the cross-motion was a proper exercise of discretion:

By failing to comply with the statutory procedure for changing venue, respondent was not entitled to a change of venue as of right. Where a respondent believes that a petitioner has chosen an improper venue, the respondent shall serve, with or before service of the answer, a written demand on the petitioner that venue be changed to a county that the respondent specifies as proper (see CPLR 511 [a], [b]). The petitioner has five days after service of the demand to serve a written consent to change venue (see CPLR 511 [b]). If no such consent is served by the petitioner, the respondent must move to change venue within 15 days of service of the demand (see CPLR 511 [b]). If a respondent fails to comply with these procedures and time limits, the respondent is not entitled to have the motion granted as of right, even if the venue was improper; the motion instead becomes one addressed to the court’s discretion… ). Here, respondent served a cross motion seeking to change venue without having first served a demand for such relief. Accordingly, the motion was addressed to Supreme Court’s discretion… . * * *

Petitioners commenced this proceeding in Ulster County pursuant to CPLR 5240, which provides that “[t]he court may at any time, on . . . the motion of any interested person, . . . make an order denying, limiting, conditioning, regulating, extending or modifying the use of any enforcement procedure.” If a judgment that is sought to be enforced was entered in Supreme Court anywhere in New York, “a special proceeding authorized by [CPLR article 52] shall be commenced, either in the supreme court or a county court, in a county in which the respondent resides or is regularly employed or has a place for the regular transaction of business in person,” if such a county exists in the state (CPLR 5221 [a] [4]). CPLR 5240 is found within CPLR article 52, and the Court of Appeals has stated that a request for court action under CPLR 5240 is properly commenced as a “special proceeding” … . Respondent, by its very designation in the caption, is the “respondent” as mentioned in CPLR 5221 (a). Respondent is a law firm with its main office in Oswego County, which is considered its residence (see CPLR 503 [c]), and no office or place of business in Ulster County. Under a plain reading of CPLR 5221 (a), the instant special proceeding was required to be commenced in Oswego County (or another county in New York where respondent has an office where it regularly transacts business), rather than Ulster County.* * *

Thus, as Oswego County, rather than Ulster County, is the proper venue under either subdivision of CPLR 5221, the first ground under CPLR 510 could support respondent’s discretionary motion to change venue.

The second ground for discretionary change of venue does not support a change, as the record contains no information that an impartial trial would be difficult to obtain in Oswego County. As for the third ground, petitioners asserted that they are residents of Ulster County and the banks that were served the restraining notices and information subpoenas are all in or around Ulster County, so numerous material witnesses appear to be located in that county. Additionally, it appears that the ends of justice would not be promoted by changing venue. In sum, the first ground would support changing venue, while the second and third grounds do not. Although Supreme Court erred in denying respondent’s cross motion as of right, in the exercise of our discretion we reach the same conclusion. Matter of Aaron v The Steele Law Firm, P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 03018, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

Law of the Case Doctrine Should Not Have Been Invoked—Criteria Explained

In a breach of contract action, Supreme Court ruled on a summary judgment motion, finding it premature.  When a second summary judgment motion was made before a different judge, the new judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability for breach of contract and noted that the first order required the ruling because it was the “law of the case.” Although the Third Department ultimately upheld the breach of contract finding, the appellate court explained that the “law of the case” doctrine did not apply because the first order merely found there were issues of fact concerning the amount owed plaintiff and did not determine there was a breach of contract. The court explained that the doctrine of “law of the case” only applies to a ruling upon a “question of law that is essential to the determination of the matter”… :

…[W]e reject plaintiff’s contention that Supreme Court was required to rule that defendants were liable for breaching the Agreement by the doctrine of the law of the case, which bars courts from reconsidering “pre-judgment rulings made by courts of coordinate jurisdiction” in the same case … . The doctrine applies only when the prior ruling directly passed upon a question of law that is essential to the determination of the matter …. . Here, the only determination made in the 2012 order was that material issues of fact existed as to the amount owed. Although additional remarks were made in that order, these were merely dicta, and did not constitute a legal determination as to whether defendants breached the Agreement by deducting expenses — an issue that was not directly addressed by the 2012 order … . Karol v Polsinello, 2015 NY Slip Op 03024, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

Failure to Provide Statutory Notice of a Motion to Enter a Default Judgment to a Defendant Who Has Appeared in the Case Is a Jurisdictional Defect Rendering the Default Judgment a Nullity

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, determined the failure to give a defendant, who has appeared in an action, notice of a motion to enter a default judgment is a defect which deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction (rendering the default judgment a nullity pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4)).  The issue is one of first impression in the Second Department and the Second Department declined to follow a contrary ruling in the 3rd Department. When the defendant previously appeared in the case, the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failure to answer the complaint. Therefore, although the plaintiff’s failure to provide the notice required by CPLR 3215 (g) (1) mandated vacatur of the default judgment, it did not, under the facts, relieve the appellant of the underlying default. Upon notice of a future motion to enter a default judgment, the defendant here may contest only the sufficiency of the factual allegations in the motion and the amount of damages:

The question of whether vacatur of the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) is appropriate where the moving party fails to notify the defendant of its motion for leave to enter a default judgment as provided by CPLR 3215(g)(1) is one of first impression in this Court. Under CPLR 5015(a)(4), a rendering court may relieve a moving party of such an order if it lacked the jurisdiction to render it in the first place. Here, it is uncontested that the Supreme Court had personal jurisdiction over the appellant, as well as jurisdiction over the subject matter in this case. However, for the reasons set forth below, we hold that the failure of the plaintiffs to give notice to the appellant of their motion for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(1) deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion, and the court should have vacated the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4). * * *

…[W]e hold that the failure to provide a defendant who has appeared in an action with the notice required by CPLR 3215(g)(1), like the failure to provide proper notice of other kinds of motions, is a jurisdictional defect that deprives the court of the authority to entertain a motion for leave to enter a default judgment. While this defect requires vacatur of the judgment, it does not, standing alone, entitle the appellant to be relieved of the underlying default upon which judgment is sought, and to defend the action on the merits … . Since the appellant has failed to establish a basis to be relieved from his underlying default in failing to answer, that underlying default remains intact. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled only to statutory notice of any future motion for leave to enter a default judgment. Upon such a future motion, the appellant may not seek to relitigate the issue of whether he is entitled to be relieved of his underlying default in failing to answer. Rather, as relevant to this case, the appellant may oppose entry of a default judgment to the limited extent of contesting the sufficiency of the proof of facts submitted by the plaintiffs in support of the motion, and contesting damages.  Paulus v Christopher Vacirca, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02944, 2nd Dept 4-8-15

 

, , ,

Emails Can Suffice as “Documentary Evidence” to Support a Motion to Dismiss—Here the Documentary Evidence About Aspects of an Employment Agreement that Were In Contention Did Not Utterly Refute the Allegation that an Employment Contract Had Already Been Entered

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a dissent, determined the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant, which dealt with several aspects of an employment agreement that were in contention, did not utterly refute plaintiff’s allegation that an employment contract had already been entered.  Therefore defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action was properly denied.  The opinion is long and detailed, as is the dissent, and cannot fairly be summarized here.  With respect to what constitutes documentary evidence in this context, the court wrote:

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), a court is obliged “to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true, according to plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determining only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . Moreover, dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted “utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations” … . If the documentary proof disproves an essential allegation of the complaint, dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) is warranted even if the allegations, standing alone, could withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action … . * * *

Preliminarily, we reject Supreme Court’s conclusion that correspondence such as the emails here do not suffice as documentary evidence for purposes of CPLR 3211(a)(1). This Court has consistently held otherwise. For example, in Schutty v Speiser Krause P.C. (86 AD3d 484, 484-485 [1st Dept 2011]), this Court found drafts of an agreement and correspondence sufficient for purposes of establishing a defense under the statute. Similarly, in Langer v Dadabhoy (44 AD3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 712 [2008]), this Court found “documentary evidence in the form of emails” to be sufficient to carry the day for a defendant on a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion. Likewise, in WFB Telecom. v NYNEX Corp. (188 AD2d 257, 259 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 709 [1993]), this Court granted a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion on the basis of a letter from the plaintiff’s counsel that contradicted the complaint. Therefore, there is no blanket rule by which email is to be excluded from consideration as documentary evidence under the statute. Kolchins v Evolution Mkts., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02863, 1st Dept 4-2-15

 

,

Child No Longer Had Sufficient Connection to New York State—Custody-Enforcement Petition Properly Dismissed

The Third Department determined mother’s custody-enforcement petition was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the child no longer had a sufficient connection to New York.  The court noted that both Title II (jurisdiction) and Title III (enforcement) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) applied:

The mother’s main argument is that Family Court erred in applying title II of the UCCJEA, entitled “[j]urisdiction,” rather than title III, entitled “[e]nforcement.” While title III is not limited to enforcement of out-of-state custody determinations, and its “mechanisms . . . are presumptively available in any enforcement action” (Merril Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 77, at 563; see Domestic Relations Law § 77), several of the sections within title III do refer or apply to custody determinations issued by courts in other states (see e.g. Domestic Relations Law §§ 77-b, 77-d, 77-e, 77-l). Similarly, title II has sections dealing with initial custody determinations and modification determinations (see Domestic Relations Law §§ 76, 76-b), neither of which is sought by the petition here, but the title overall is broader than those sections. Simply because the mother’s petition seeks enforcement of a custody determination, rather than modification, does not mean that the title addressing enforcement must be relied upon independently and exclusively, without any possible reference to the title addressing jurisdiction. Instead, courts can apply both the jurisdiction and enforcement portions of the UCCJEA, where applicable.

A New York court that made a child custody determination “has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until . . . a court of this state determines that neither the child, [nor] the child and one parent, . . . have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]). Here, Family Court determined that the child had lived in Georgia with the father for more than two years and all of her medical and educational records and providers are in Georgia . While the mother and other family members reside in New York, the child did not return to New York — for visitation or any other reason — during the years that she was living in Georgia … . Thus, neither the child nor the father had a significant connection with New York, and substantial evidence regarding “the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships” is located in Georgia rather than New York (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]). According to the statute, after this determination, New York courts no longer have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the divorce judgment determining custody. Due to this determination, Family Court properly dismissed the mother’s petition for lack of jurisdiction … . Matter of Wengenroth v McGuire, 2015 NY Slip Op 02818, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

,

Appellate Division Should Have Allowed Respondent to Answer Petition After Dismissal of the Petition Was Reversed by the Appellate Division

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division erred when it did not remand an Article 78 proceeding to Supreme Court to allow the respondent university (NYU) to submit an answer to the petition.  The petition was brought by a dental student seeking redress after she was expelled.  Supreme Court dismissed the petition.  The Appellate Division reversed:

The principal issue raised by this appeal is whether the Appellate Division erred by failing to remand to Supreme Court to permit NYU to file an answer pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f). That provision specifies that where a respondent moves to dismiss a CPLR article 78 petition and the motion is denied, “the court shall permit the respondent to answer, upon such terms as may be just” … . We have indicated, however, that a court need not do so if the “facts are so fully presented in the papers of the respective parties that it is clear that no dispute as to the facts exists and no prejudice will result from the failure to require an answer” … . Since “the motion papers” in BOCES “clearly did not establish that there were no triable issues of fact,” we held that “the procedure dictated by CPLR 7804 (subd [f]) should have been followed” … . For the same reason, NYU should be permitted to answer in this case.

A student subject to disciplinary action at a private educational institution is not entitled to the “full panoply of due process rights” … . Such an institution need only ensure that its published rules are “substantially observed” … . And here, triable issues of fact exist with regard to whether NYU substantially complied with its established disciplinary procedures. Matter of Kickertz v New York Univ., 2015 NY Slip Op 02800, CtApp 4-2-15

 

,

Foreign Money Judgment Properly Enforced—Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly enforced a Canadian money judgment.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

“Under CPLR article 53, a judgment issued by the court of a foreign country is recognized and enforceable in New York State if it is final, conclusive and enforceable when rendered'” … . “[A] foreign country judgment is considered conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money'” … . “However, a foreign country judgment is not conclusive, and thus may not be recognized, if (1) it was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law’ or (2) the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant'” … . “A plaintiff seeking enforcement of a foreign country judgment bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that the mandatory grounds for nonrecognition do not exist” … .

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice is part of a judicial system that provides impartial tribunals and procedures compatible with due process of law … and, here, that court had a valid basis for exercising jurisdiction over the defendant, as the defendant purposefully transacted business in Ontario (see CPLR 5305[b]; CPLR 302[a][1]…). Moreover, CPLR 5305(a)(2) provides, in relevant part, that a foreign country judgment “shall not be refused recognition” by New York “for lack of personal jurisdiction if . . . the defendant voluntarily appeared” in the foreign court proceedings for purposes other than “contesting the jurisdiction of the court” over him or her. Although the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant was properly served with process in the Canadian action …, the plaintiff nonetheless demonstrated that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had personal jurisdiction over the defendant, as the defendant “voluntarily appeared” in the Canadian action (CPLR 5305[a][2]…) and “did more than [it] had to do to preserve a jurisdictional objection” … .  Gemstar Can., Inc. v George A. Fuller Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02726, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

“Intrinsic” Versus “Extrinsic” Fraud as the Basis of a Motion to Open a Default Judgment/Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect

In the context of a mortgage foreclosure, the defendant made a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) to open a default judgment.  The Second Department determined the motion was properly denied and explained the difference between allegations of “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” fraud as the basis of the motion.  The court noted that a lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect:

The defendant alleged, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), that the plaintiff committed “intrinsic fraud,” by submitting fraudulent documents in support of its claim for a judgment of foreclosure and sale … . She did not allege “extrinsic fraud,” which is “a fraud practiced in obtaining a judgment such that a party may have been prevented from fully and fairly litigating the matter” … . Therefore, the defendant was required to show a reasonable excuse for her default … . However, she failed to offer any excuse for her default … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peters, 2015 NY Slip Op 02757, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

,

Court Properly Declined to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Child Custody/Access Matters Because the Children No Longer Had a Sufficient Connection with New York State

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly refused to consider child custody/access matters because the children no longer had a significant connection with New York:

New York is the children’s “home state,” since they resided here for six consecutive months before the commencement of the child custody proceeding (Domestic Relations Law § 76[1][a]; see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a…). The judgment of divorce, which determined the parties’ child custody issues, confers continuing jurisdiction over the children with the New York Courts (see Domestic Relations Law §§ 76, 76-a). However, a New York court may decline to exercise jurisdiction where, as here, neither of the parents nor any of the children retain a significant connection with New York and substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the children’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a[1][a]…). A court may also decline to exercise jurisdiction where it determines that the children or the children’s parents no longer reside in New York (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a[1][a], [b]…). Under Domestic Relations Law § 76-f, a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it determines, after an evaluation of statutory factors, that New York is an inconvenient forum and that another state provides a more appropriate forum … . Here, since the defendant resides in California, and the plaintiff and children moved to Maryland in November 2012, the Supreme Court, after considering the statutory factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 76-f(2)(a) through (h), properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the issues concerning the defendant’s access to the children. Pelgrim v Pelgrim,2015 NY Slip Op 02738, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

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