You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Jury’s Failure to Award Damages for Future Pain and Suffering Did Not Warrant Setting Aside Verdict

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict based upon the jury’s failure to award damages for future pain and suffering.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

In determining a motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence, the court must decide whether the evidence so preponderates in favor of the movant that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Resolution of the motion does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors … . Moreover, “[g]reat deference is accorded to the fact-finding function of the jury, and determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses are for the factfinders, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” … . Thus, “[w]here the verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the jury’s failure to award damages for future pain and suffering was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence presented at trial, with consideration given to the credibility of the witnesses and the drawing of reasonable inferences therefrom, and there was no basis in the record for the trial court to disturb the jury’s resolution of credibility issues against the plaintiff … . Raso v Jamdar, 2015 NY Slip Op 01934, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Plaintiff Brought a Frivolous Lawsuit Solely to Harass/Costs Properly Imposed on Plaintiff

The Second Department determined plaintiff had brought a frivolous lawsuit to harass and costs were properly imposed on the plaintiff:

A court may award a party “costs in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting from frivolous conduct” (22 NYCRR 130.1.1[a]). “In addition to or in lieu of awarding costs, the court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]…). “[C]onduct is frivolous if . . . (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]…). The decision whether to impose costs or sanctions against a party for frivolous conduct, and the amount of any such costs or sanctions, is generally entrusted to the court’s sound discretion … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined, after a hearing, that the plaintiff engaged in frivolous conduct in commencing this action, as this action is “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law,” and was undertaken primarily to harass the defendants … . Strunk v New York State Bd. of Elections, 2015 NY Slip Op 01936, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

, ,

Question of Fact Re: Whether the “Continuous Representation Doctrine” Tolled the Three-Year Statute of Limitations in a Legal Malpractice Action

The Second Department determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact re: whether the three-year statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. The court explained the doctrine as follows:

The three-year limitations period applicable to causes of action to recover damages for legal malpractice “may be tolled by the continuous representation doctrine where there is a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject matter underlying the malpractice claim” … . “For the doctrine to apply, there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney” … . ” One of the predicates for the application of the doctrine is continuing trust and confidence in the relationship between the parties'” … . Beroza v Sallah Law Firm, P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 01913, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

, , ,

Statutes of Limitations for Actions Stemming from the Alleged Fraudulent Transfer of Real Property Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s actions, which stemmed from the allegation defendant had acquired a deed to his property by fraud, were timely. The court explained the statutes of limitations for actual and constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, actions to quiet title, conversion by fraud, money had and received, and constructive trust. In essence, actions which have an equitable component are governed by a six-year statute of limitations:

The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated … . * * *

The statute of limitations for a cause of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty is dependent on the relief sought. The Court of Appeals ruled in IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Deal Witter & Co. (12 NY3d at 139):

“New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims. Rather, the choice of the applicable limitations period depends on the substantive remedy that the plaintiff seeks. Where the remedy sought is purely monetary in nature, courts construe the suit as alleging injury to property’ within the meaning of CPLR 214(4), which has a three-year limitations period. Where, however, the relief sought is equitable in nature, the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213(1) applies. Moreover, where an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)” (citations omitted).

Since the plaintiff’s right to the subject property is in issue, awarding damages would not be adequate. Therefore, the six-year statute of limitations for causes of action sounding in equity should be applied … . Since the second and third causes of action accrued in 2006, when the defendants allegedly acted contrary to their fiduciary obligations, to the plaintiff’s detriment, those causes of action, interposed four years later in 2010, are not time-barred.

The first cause of action, to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15, is not time-barred, since the plaintiff was seized or possessed of the premises within 10 years before the commencement of the action and is in essence seeking a determination that the quitclaim deed which he executed in 2003 was part of a mortgage transaction, and not a conveyance of title (see CPLR 212[a]; Real Property Law § 320…).

The fourth cause of action, alleging conversion based upon fraud, is not time-barred, since it is governed by the statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213(8) … .

The fifth cause of action, seeking damages for money had and received …, is equitable in nature and, therefore, the applicable statute of limitations is six years … . Since the defendants’ receipt of money occurred in 2006, and the action was commenced in 2010, the cause of action is not time-barred. Similarly, the sixth cause of action, sounding in unjust enrichment, is equitable in nature, and is not time-barred … .

The seventh cause of action alleging a constructive trust is equitable in nature and governed by a six-year statute of limitations … . The elements of a cause of action to impose a constructive trust are (1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon, and (4) unjust enrichment … . The cause of action accrued on the date of the “wrongful transfer” of the subject property … . Loeuis v Grushin. 2015 NY Slip Op 01926, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

 

 

“Single Motion Rule” Barred Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) based upon the “single motion” rule.  The defendants had made motions to dismiss certain causes of action in the original complaint.  Therefore the defendants could not make those motions again with respect to an amended complaint:

CPLR 3211(e) provides, in relevant part, that at any time before service of a responsive pleading is required, a party may move to dismiss a pleading “on one or more grounds set forth” in CPLR 3211(a), and that “no more than one such motion shall be permitted.” Accordingly, this “single motion rule prohibits parties from making successive motions to dismiss a pleading” pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) … . The rule bars both repetitive motions to dismiss a pleading pursuant CPLR 3211(a), as well as subsequent motions to dismiss that pleading pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) that are based on alternative grounds … . Here, the defendants previously moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the original complaint on the grounds that documentary evidence established a complete defense to the action (see CPLR 3211[a][1]), that the action was time-barred (see CPLR 3211[a][5]), and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211[a][7]). * * * Accordingly, those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss … [substantially identical] causes of action in the amended complaint were procedurally barred by the single-motion rule, and were properly denied (see CPLR 3211[e]…). Bailey v Peerstate Equity Fund, L.P., 2015 NY Slip Op 01911, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

, ,

Sua Sponte Rulings Do Not Become the Law-of-the-Case and Do Not Bind an Appellate Court

The Second Department noted that a sua sponte determination does not become the law-of-the-case  and does not bind the appellate court:

Supreme Court determined that, pursuant to the law-of-the-case doctrine, it was bound by the prior Supreme Court order to hold that [a nonparty] was a bona fide purchaser of the subject property. On that ground, the Supreme Court concluded that, “[h]aving failed to obtain a stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 to prevent the property from being sold, [defendant] [was] relegated to an action for money damages, and would not be able to recover the real property” … . However, since the parties had not litigated the sua sponte determination as to [the nonparty’s] status, application of the doctrine of law of the case was improper … . In any event, this Court is not bound by the Supreme Court’s prior determination finding [the nonparty] to be a bona fide purchaser and may reach the merits of that issue … . Debcon Fin. Servs., Inc. v 83-17 Broadway Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 01920, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

, , ,

Mandamus to Compel Proceedings Properly Sought to Compel the NYC Housing Authority to Consider Requests for Increases in “Section 8” Rent Subsidies (A Ministerial Act), But a Particular Result Could Not Be Compelled (Because Exercise of Discretion Involved)

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined that Article78/mandamus-to-compel proceedings were properly brought by owners of rental-properties against the NYC Housing Authority seeking rulings re: increased and suspended “Section 8” rent subsidies. The court held that the property-owners could compel the NYCHA to consider its requests (a ministerial act), but could not compel any specific result (an exercise of discretion).  The action was deemed timely because the NYCHA had never denied the requests, therefore the four-month statute never started running.  With respect increased subsidies, the court wrote:

An article 78 mandamus proceeding may be brought to compel an agency “to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law” (CPLR 7803[1]). It is well-settled that a mandamus to compel “applies only to acts that are ministerial in nature and not those that involve the exercise of discretion” … . Thus, “the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the relief demanded and there must exist a corresponding nondiscretionary duty on the part of the administrative agency to grant that relief” … .

Supreme Court properly found that the determination of the amount of any increase in the Section 8 subsidy is not purely ministerial but a matter entrusted to NYCHA’s discretion. An owner cannot receive a rent increase unless NYCHA first determines the reasonable rent (24 CFR 982.507[a][2][i]). In doing so, NYCHA is required to compare the unit’s rent to comparable unassisted units and must consider a myriad of discretionary factors, including location, quality, size, type and age of the unit, and any services, utilities and amenities provided (24 CFR 982.507[b]). Because the determination of the amount of any rental increase involves the exercise of discretion, it is not subject to mandamus. * * *

Although the eventual determination of reasonable rent will be the product of NYCHA’s judgment, the agency does not enjoy similar discretion to not make a decision at all on the rent increase requests. The applicable regulation, relied upon by NYCHA, provides that before any rent increase is allowed, NYCHA “must redetermine the reasonable rent” (24 CFR 982.507[a][2][i] [emphasis added]; see also 24 CFR 982.519[a] [under regulation relied upon by petitioners, NYCHA must annually adjust rent at owner’s request]). Upon the proper submission of a request for rent increase, NYCHA must process the request and come to a determination, whether adverse to petitioners’ position or not. NYCHA cannot leave petitioners in limbo, neither granting nor denying their requests, many of which have been pending for a significant amount of time. Thus, the petition states a claim for mandamus relief to the extent it seeks an order directing NYCHA to make a determination with respect to the rent increase requests … . Matter of Flosar Realty LLC v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 01906, 1st Dept 3-10-15

 

Criteria for Intervention as of Right and Permission to Intervene Explained (Not Met Here)

The Third Department determined a fund, which was entitled to reimbursement from any damages awarded plaintiff in a pending medical malpractice action, did not have the right to intervene and was properly denied permission to intervene in the medical malpractice action.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

As relevant here, any person may intervene as of right “when the representation of the person’s interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment” (CPLR 1012 [a] [2]). The Fund would be bound by any judgment because plaintiff has sought to recover medical costs, as well as other damages, in his complaints in these actions. Despite the Fund’s argument, however, it appears that plaintiff is and will adequately represent the Fund’s interests. At oral argument, the Fund acknowledged that plaintiff’s counsel is competent and will act in good faith. Plaintiff has an incentive to maximize his recovery, considering that he will not receive anything personally if he obtains a settlement or verdict of $537,273.12 or less. Plaintiff is also contractually bound to protect the Fund’s right to subrogation and has agreed to a lien on any recovery … . Supreme Court correctly found that plaintiff is adequately representing the Fund’s interests, and any argument that plaintiff may not do so in the future is pure speculation … .

A court may permit intervention, in its discretion, when the person’s claim has a common question of law or fact with the main action, but “the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay the determination of the action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party” (CPLR 1013). Although the Fund’s asserted claim has common questions of law and fact with plaintiff’s claims, intervention was properly denied. Intervention would cause some delay because it would lead to duplicative discovery and motion practice, as the Fund and plaintiff could each separately seek demands and relief from the multiple defendants … . This could also cause some prejudice to defendants, who would be required to respond to similar repetitive demands and motions, as well as the possibility of the Fund calling additional witnesses or even experts at trial. The Court of Appeals has even acknowledged that allowing a provider of medical benefit payments to intervene could create tension between the injured party and his or her insurer,… and “inevitably complicates settlement negotiations” … . Mavente v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 01849, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

,

Court Should Not Have Summarily Determined Declaratory Judgment Action In Absence of a Request to Do So/The Mootness Doctrine Precluded Court Rulings on an Expired Contract/The Open Meetings Law Was Violated by the Town

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have summarily considered the declaratory judgment aspect of this hybrid action without a request to do so and without converting the proceeding to a summary judgment action.  The Third Department further determined the mootness doctrine precluded the Supreme Court from ruling on the provisions of an expired contract, and the town had violated the Open Meetings Law by holding closed sessions.  The action concerned the use of property for motorcycle events. Local property owners brought the action alleging that the events violated the allowed use of the land:

It is well settled that a court’s jurisdiction extends only to live controversies” …, and a matter becomes moot “unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the [claim] and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” … . Where, as here, the passage of time or “a change in circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy,” the claim must be dismissed … . The 2013 agreement, by its own terms, pertained solely to Safety Track’s land uses and events that occurred during the 2013 track season and expired at the end of that year, thereby rendering the challenges to the 2013 agreement moot … . Further, we do not agree with Supreme Court’s finding that the exception to the mootness doctrine was satisfied… . …

In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those which seek declaratory relief, on the other hand” … . In the absence of a formalized motion requesting the “summary determination of the causes of action which seek . . . declaratory relief, it is error for [a court] to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … .

It is undisputed that there was no pending motion for summary disposition of the declaratory judgment action when Supreme Court rendered its 2014 judgment. Nor did the court provide notice to the parties that it was considering the summary disposition of the declaratory judgment action, such that the parties would be afforded an opportunity to further develop the evidentiary record and offer competent proof supportive of their respective positions … .

… Generally, “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with [Public Officers Law § 105]” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a]). While a governing body may enter into an executive session, it may do so only for certain purposes, including, as is relevant here, the consideration of an appointment or to engage in private discussions relating to proposed or pending litigation (see Public Officers Law § 105 [1] [f]…). However, the body must “identify the subject matter to be discussed . . . with some degree of particularity”… . * * * As the Town failed to demonstrate that it comported with the relevant statutory provisions when conducting the instant executive sessions, such sessions were violative of the Public Officers Law … . Matter of Ballard v New York Safety Track LLC. 2015 NY Slip Op 01845, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

 

, ,

Trustee’s Settlement of Claims Against Countrywide/Bank of America Stemming from Sale of Mortgage-Backed Securities Approved

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined the trustee properly exercised its discretion in settling the claims stemming from mortgage-backed securities sold by Countrywide Home Loans between 2004 and 2008. Countywide was subsequently purchased by Bank of America (BofA). The First Department explained the courts’ powers re: reviewing the settlement under CPLR Article 77:

The ultimate issue for determination here is whether the trustee’s discretionary power was exercised reasonably and in good faith … . It is not the task of the court to decide whether we agree with the Trustee’s judgment; rather, our task is limited to ensuring that the trustee has not acted in bad faith such that his conduct constituted an abuse of discretion … .

We agree with Supreme Court that the Trustee did not abuse its discretion or act unreasonably or in bad faith in embarking on the settlement here. The Trustee acted within its authority throughout the process, and there is no indication that it was acting in self-interest or in the interests of BofA rather than those of the certificateholders.

Importantly, “if a trustee has selected trust counsel prudently and in good faith, and has relied on plausible advice on a matter within counsel’s expertise, the trustee’s conduct is significantly probative of prudence” (Restatement [Third] of Trusts § 77, Comment b[2]). While reliance on the advice of counsel may not always be the end of the analysis regarding a claimed breach of trust — it is possible for a trustee to specifically seek out legal advice that would support the trustee’s desired course of conduct, or there may be other circumstances establishing that it was unreasonable to follow the legal advice (id.) — a party challenging the decisions of a trustee who followed the advice of a highly-regarded specialist in the relevant area of law can prevail only upon a showing that, based on the particular circumstances, the reliance on such counsel’s assessment was unreasonable and in bad faith. Court approval of the settlement does not require that the court agree with counsel’s judgment or assessment; all that is required is a determination that it was reasonable for the Trustee to rely on counsel’s expert judgment. Matter of Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2015 NY Slip Op 01880, 1st Dept 3-5-15

 

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