Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the Parties Laid Bare Their Proof and Supreme Court Properly Treated the Motion as One for Summary Judgment Pursuant to CPLR 3212 Seeking Dismissal of the Complaint as Time-Barred

The Second Department determined defendant did not waive its statute of limitations defense, asserted in its answer, by not making a pre-answer motion to dismiss. Although defendant’s subsequent motion was ostensibly brought pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the parties laid bare their proof. Therefore Supreme Court properly treated the motion as one for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, seeking to dismiss the complaint as time-barred:

Initially, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant did not waive its statute of limitations defense, asserted in its answer, by failing to make a pre-answer motion to dismiss … . Rather, a statute of limitations defense may be asserted after joinder of issue in a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 … . Although the defendant’s motion was made pursuant to 3211(a)(5), the parties clearly charted a summary judgment course by submitting extensive documentary evidence and factual affidavits laying bare their proof … . Thus, the defendant’s motion is properly treated as a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred … . Meredith v Siben & Siben, LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 06120, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Instead of 3212, the Procedural Irregularity Should Have Been Excused under CPLR 2001

The Second Department explained there is no requirement that a statute of limitations defense be raised solely in a pre-answer motion to dismiss.  The defense may be asserted in the answer, and subsequently raised in a summary judgment motion or at trial. Although defendant’s post-answer motion was ostensibly brought pursuant to CPLR 3211 instead of 3212, the procedural irregularity should have been excused under CPLR 2001:

CPLR 3211(a) permits a defendant who wishes to raise a defense based on the statute of limitations to do so by way of a motion to dismiss. That section provides, in relevant part, that “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him [or her] on the ground that . . . the cause of action may not be maintained because of [the] statute of limitations” (CPLR 3211[a][5]). CPLR 3211(e) provides that the defendant may make the motion to dismiss before its answer is required to be served, or may include the defense in its answer and seek relief later. When the defendant does neither, the defense is waived.

“At any time before service of the responsive pleading is required, a party may move on one or more of the grounds set forth in subdivision (a) . . . . Any objection or defense based upon a ground set forth in paragraph[ ] five . . . of subdivision (a) is waived unless raised either by such motion or in the responsive pleading” (CPLR 3211[e]).

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, a defendant who wishes to assert the statute of limitations as a defense is not limited to asserting it by way of a pre-answer motion. The defendant may instead choose to raise that defense in its answer, and either move on that ground later in a motion for summary judgment, or wait until trial to have it determined … .

Here, the defendant did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, but raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in its answer. Then, after the note of issue was filed, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on that ground. Although the defendant denominated its motion as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, rather than as a motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, that procedural irregularity should have been excused under CPLR 2001, upon proper notice to the parties … . Wan Li Situ v MTA Bus Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 06130, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

Second Voluntary Discontinuance Operated as an Adjudication on the Merits Requiring Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Third Attempt to Commence the Same Action

Before bringing the instant proceeding, the plaintiff had voluntarily discontinued two prior proceedings involving the same matter. Pursuant to CPLR 3217 (c), the second voluntary discontinuance operated as an adjudication of the merits requiring dismissal of the third action:

CPLR 3217(c) provides that unless otherwise stated, inter alia, in a notice of discontinuance, a voluntary discontinuance is “without prejudice, except that a discontinuance by means of notice operates as an adjudication on the merits if the party has once before discontinued by any method an action based on or including the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States.” In this case, the plaintiff voluntarily discontinued the second action, which was based upon the same causes of action as the first action, by notice of discontinuance. Under the circumstances of this case, where there was no legitimate purpose for discontinuing the second action, the second voluntary discontinuance by notice operated as an adjudication on the merits pursuant to CPLR 3217(c)… . Haber v Raso, 2015 NY Slip Op 06113, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, , ,

Defendant Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees after Plaintiff’s Motion for a Voluntary Discontinuance in a Foreclosure Action Was Granted Without Prejudice—Defendant Was Not a “Prevailing Party” within the Meaning of Real Property Law 282—Denial of Attorney’s Fees Was Not an Abuse of Discretion Under CPLR 3217 (c)

After the grant of plaintiff’s motion for a voluntary discontinuance (without prejudice) of a foreclosure action defendant (Rivera) sought the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Real Property Law 282 and CPLR 3217 (b). The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied the request for attorney’s fees. Under the Real Property Law, the prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees, but plaintiff’s voluntary discontinuance was not on the merits.  Therefore defendant was not the prevailing party within the meaning of the statute. The award of attorney’s fees under CPLR 3217 (b) is discretionary and Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request:

In New York, “attorneys’ fees are deemed incidental to litigation and may not be recovered unless supported by statute, court rule or written agreement of the parties” … .

[Real Property Law 282] provides that “[w]henever a covenant contained in a mortgage on residential real property shall provide that . . . the mortgagee may recover attorneys’ fees and/or expenses incurred as the result of the failure of the mortgagor to perform any covenant or agreement contained in such mortgage . . . there shall be implied in such mortgage a covenant by the mortgagee to pay to the mortgagor the reasonable attorneys’ fees and/or expenses incurred by the mortgagor . . . in the successful defense of any action or proceeding commenced by the mortgagee against the mortgagor arising out of the contract” (Real Property Law § 282). * * *

Here, the voluntary discontinuance of this action pursuant to CPLR 3217(c) was without prejudice and there was no substantive determination on the merits of either the plaintiff’s cause of action or Rivera’s counterclaims and defenses. Accordingly, Rivera was not a prevailing party for the purposes of Real Property Law § 282 and was not entitled to an award of an attorney’s fee for a “successful defense” of this foreclosure action (Real Property Law § 282…).

* * * The determination of whether to award an attorney’s fee [pursuant to CPLR 3217 (c)] as a condition of granting a voluntary discontinuance is a matter left to the sound discretion of the court … . Here, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of Rivera’s motion which was for an award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) … . DKR Mtge. Asset Trust 1 v Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 06108, 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

 

, ,

Estate of Mortgage-Holder Is a Necessary Party In a Foreclosure Proceeding

The Third Department determined that the estate of one of the mortgage-holders was a necessary party in a foreclosure proceeding. The court explained the relevant law:

“In an action to foreclose a mortgage, all parties having an interest, including persons holding title to the subject premises, must be made a ‘party . . . to the action'” … . Although defendant did not specifically raise the argument that decedent’s estate was a necessary party to the instant action, “the absence of a necessary party may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion” … . …. [W]here two individuals are the co-holders of a mortgage and one dies, the plaintiffs in a related foreclosure action would be the living mortgagee — or, in this case, his assignee … — and the personal representative of the deceased mortgagee … .

Here, given the lack of evidence that the corpus and distribution of decedent’s estate have previously been determined, such determination for the first time could inequitably affect decedent’s estate … . We find that decedent’s estate is therefore a necessary party to this action, as “[t]he rights, interests and equities of all of the parties claiming an interest in the mortgaged premises . . . should be settled and determined before any judgment of foreclosure and sale is entered” … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Sulyman, 2015 NY Slip Op 05989, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

, ,

Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Standing Reversed—Defendants Did Not Raise the Defense and Therefore Waived It—Lack of Standing is Not a Jurisdictional Defect

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the foreclosure action for an alleged lack of standing. The defendants did not raise the standing defense and, therefore, waived it. Standing is not a jurisdictional defense warranting sua sponte action by the court:

The Supreme Court improperly, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff lacked 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 raise the defense of lack of standing in their answers and did not make pre-answer motions to dismiss the complaint on that ground, they waived the issue … . Moreover, 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 … . Onewest Bank, FSB v Prince, 2015 NY Slip Op 05922, 2nd Dept 7-8-15

 

,

Declaratory Judgment, Not Mandamus, Was Proper Vehicle for Determining Whether a Town Was Obligated to Repair a Bridge

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly converted a mandamus proceeding to a declaratory judgment proceeding and properly found that the town was obligated, under the Highway Law, to repair an unsafe bridge. However, Supreme Court did not have the power to direct the town to make the repairs “as expeditiously as possible.”  The Second Department explained the relevant law:

“The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is available in limited circumstances only to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act which does not involve the exercise of official discretion or judgment, and only when a clear legal right to the relief has been demonstrated” …, whereas declaratory relief “is not an extraordinary remedy,” as it “only provides a declaration of rights between parties” and “cannot be executed upon so as to compel a party to perform an act” … . Here, the appellants correctly concede that the Town is obligated to repair and maintain the Dock Street Bridge, since it is part of a highway by use within the meaning of Highway Law § 189 by virtue of the Town’s maintenance of Dock Street for the requisite statutory time period … . However, as the Supreme Court correctly observed, “[t]he many factors involved in a determination as to when and how bridges should be constructed, reconstructed and repaired militate that such judgments must be left to the [Town], with due regard to fiscal appropriations, and should not be the subject of judicial fiat” … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly converted the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action pursuant to CPLR 103(c) and, thereupon, declared that the Town “is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of the Dock Street Bridge”… .

However, the Supreme Court erred by declaring that the Town “shall take all measures necessary to fulfill its legal obligation to repair or replace the Dock Street Bridge, as expeditiously as possible in consideration of . . . fiscal and other concerns.” It is beyond cavil that ” questions of judgment, discretion, allocation of resources and priorities [are] inappropriate for resolution in the judicial arena'” … . As the Supreme Court recognized, it is within the discretion of the Town to “investigat[e] . . . the most appropriate method of repairing or replacing the bridge, and the potential availability of grants and funding sources other than the [T]own’s tax base” to address its “present financial inability to replace the Dock Street Bridge,” and courts cannot interfere with this function … . Consequently, the Supreme Court’s declaration that the Town must “take all measures necessary to . . . repair or replace the Dock Street Bridge[ ] as expeditiously as possible” was purely advisory and does not create any binding obligation on the Town. Thus, this declaration was improper … . Matter of Hyde Park Landing, Ltd. v Town of Hyde Park, 2015 NY Slip Op 05945, 2nd Dept 7-8-15