You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

CPLR 3216 IS A FORGIVING STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 90-DAY NOTICE; HERE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND DEMONSTRATED THE ACTION HAS MERIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint should not have been dismissed on “neglect to proceed” grounds after plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the 90-day notice:

“CPLR 3216 is an extremely forgiving statute which never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action based on the plaintiff’s unreasonable neglect to proceed” … . In opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216, a plaintiff may still avoid dismissal if he or she demonstrates “a justifiable excuse for the failure to timely abide by the 90-day demand, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action” … . “Thus, even when all of the statutory preconditions are met, including plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 90-day requirement, plaintiff has yet another opportunity to salvage the action simply by opposing the motion to dismiss with a justifiable excuse” and proof of a potentially meritorious cause of action … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ belief that the action remained stayed in the absence of some affirmative act by the Supreme Court, although erroneous, constituted a justifiable excuse under the circumstances for their failure to respond to the defendant’s 90-day notice. Notably, the 90-day notice was sent only three months after the stay had been lifted, and the record does not otherwise contain evidence of a pattern of persistent neglect or delay in prosecuting the action or an intent to abandon the action … . Furthermore, the plaintiffs established the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action sounding in strict products liability … . Holness v Gigglesworld Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06031, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: CPLR 3216 is a forgiving statute which allows but does not require the dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with a 90-day notice. Here plaintiffs presented an adequate excuse and demonstrated a meritorious cause of action. The complaint should not have been dismissed.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT OWNER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BY SUBSTITUTE SERVICE; EVEN PROPER SUBSTITUTE SERVICE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant owner of defendant corporation (Tatiana Batin) and the corporation (Godess … Spa …) were not properly served with the summons and complaint in this action alleging an employee of defendant corporation sexually abused plaintiff during a massage:

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Batin was properly served with the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(2). The hearing evidence established that the address at which Batin was purportedly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) was neither her actual dwelling place nor her usual place of abode as of the purported date of service … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, “‘[e]ven if a defendant eventually acquires actual notice of the lawsuit, actual notice alone will not sustain the service or subject a person to the court’s jurisdiction when there has not been compliance with prescribed conditions of service'” … .

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Goddess was properly served pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1), which required delivery of the summons and complaint to “an officer, director, managing or general agent, or . . . any other agent authorized . . . to receive service.” “Personal service on a corporation must be made to one of the persons authorized by the statute to accept service, and an attempt to serve such person by substitute service pursuant to CPLR 308(2) or (4) will be insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation” … . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that Batin had been properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2), substituted service upon her pursuant to CPLR 308(2) would be insufficient to acquire personal jurisdiction over Goddess, as CPLR 311(a)(1) requires personal service directly upon a corporate representative … . Flatow v Goddess Sanctuary & Spa Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06029, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: At the hearing plaintiff did not prove defendant owner of defendant corporation was properly served with the summons and complaint by substitute service.

Practice Point: Personal jurisdiction over a corporation cannot be acquired by substitute service.

 

, , ,

THERE IS NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR A TORT ACTION AGAINST A CHARTER SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a plaintiff is not required to serve a notice of claim for a tort action against a charter school. Here the infant plaintiff was injured on the playground of a charter school (Evergreen) and Supreme Court dismissed the case because no notice of claim had been served on the school:

… [A]s explained in this Court’s recent opinion and order in A.P. v John W. Lavelle Preparatory Charter Sch. (228 AD3d 138), Education Law § 3813(2) and General Municipal Law § 50-e do not require service of a notice of claim prior to commencement of a tort action against a charter school … . Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Evergreen based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to serve Evergreen with a notice of claim … . L.R. v Evergreen Charter Sch., 2024 NY Slip Op 05998, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: A plaintiff bringing a tort action against a charter school is not required to serve a notice of claim.

 

,

A COURT’S POWER TO SEARCH THE RECORD AND AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO A NONMOVING PARTY IS LIMITED TO THE CAUSES OF ACTION OR ISSUES IN THE MOTIONS BEFORE IT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that a court’s power to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party is constrained by the causes of action or issues raised in the motions before it:

Although the court has the authority to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see CPLR 3212[b] …), the “power to search the record and afford a nonmoving party summary relief is not . . . boundless” … . Thus, “a court may search the record and grant summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party only with respect to a cause of action or issue that is the subject of the motions before the court” … . Here, the court improperly considered an issue that was not the subject of the motion before it … . Mejia v 69 Mamaroneck Rd. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05974, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: A court cannot search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party on a cause of action or an issue not raised in the motions before it.​

 

, ,

IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW SHE ACTUALLY SUSTAINED DAMAGES TO SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of a legal malpractice complaint, noted that the plaintiff need not show she actually sustained damages to survive a dismissal motion:

The plaintiffs alleged … that they retained the defendants to represent them in an action to recover damages for personal injuries the plaintiff … allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident (hereinafter the underlying action) and that due to the defendants’ failures to pursue a theory based on a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509(3), the plaintiffs were not able to obtain a verdict in their favor in the underlying action. * * *

To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, “a plaintiff must allege that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages” … . “To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages but for the attorney’s negligence” … . “A plaintiff is not obligated to show, on a motion to dismiss, that it actually sustained damages … . “Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss” … . Kowalski v Gold Benes, LLP, 2024 NY Slip Op 05967, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: In this legal malpractice case, the court noted the plaintiff need not show she actually sustained damages to survive a motion to dismiss.​

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED OR EVEN NOTIFIED OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT AND THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE HER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint. Therefore the court never had jurisdiction over the defendant:

… [T]he plaintiff was on notice in December 2018 that service upon the defendant allegedly was defective when the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff nonetheless waited nearly 10 months thereafter to move for an extension of time to serve the defendant. Moreover, the plaintiff’s motion was made more than two months after the hearing before the special referee concluded, even though the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the defendant had been residing in Canada for decades … . Although the statute of limitations had already expired by the time the plaintiff moved for an extension of time, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it diligently prosecuted this action … . “Moreover, . . . the plaintiff submitted no evidence that [the defendant] had actual notice of the action against her within the 120-day service period” … . Further, the plaintiff failed to rebut the inference [*3]of substantial prejudice to the defendant that arose from the protracted delay in obtaining such notice … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant.

Since the defendant was not properly served with the summons and complaint and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate entitlement to an extension of time to effectuate service, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her. “The court does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant when a plaintiff fails to properly effectuate service of process. In those instances in which process has not been served upon a defendant, all subsequent proceedings will be rendered null and void” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Labin, 2024 NY Slip Op 05963, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the analytical criteria for determining whether a motion to extend the time to serve a defendant with the summons and complaint should be granted.

 

, ,

THE ERRORS MADE IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE NOT MADE IN BAD FAITH AND DID NOT PREJUDICE THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANT; THEREFORE AMENDMENT OF THE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the erroneous incident-date in the notice of claim did not justify dismissal of the action in this sidewalk slip and fall case. The error was not made in bad faith and did not prejudice the municipal defendant:

The Transit defendants … moved … pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint … on the ground that the notice of claim did not comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e(2), as it incorrectly listed the date of the accident as March 5, 2016, instead of April 5, 2016, and identified the plaintiff as “Maria Hernandez,” instead of “Maria Hernandez-Panell.” …

General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) requires that a notice of claim set forth … “the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose” … . “[I]n determining compliance with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e, courts should focus on the purpose served by a Notice of Claim: whether based on the claimant’s description municipal authorities can locate the place, fix the time and understand the nature of the accident” … . Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), a court has discretion to grant leave to serve an amended notice of claim where the error in the original notice was made in good faith and where the other party has not been prejudiced thereby … .

Here, there is no indication that the date originally listed in the notice of claim as the accident date was set forth in bad faith, and the Transit defendants did not demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the error … . Moreover, the plaintiff supplied the correct date of the accident at the hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h and Public Authorities Law § 1212(5) … . Hernandez-Panell v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05962, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Errors in a notice of claim against a municipality should not result in dismissal of the action if the errors were not made in bad faith and did not prejudice the municipal defendant.​

 

, , ,

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO IDENTIFY “JOHN DOE” “JANE DOE” DEFENDANTS AS POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED AND THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to amend the complaint to identify police officers as the “John Doe, Jane Doe” defendants in this 18 USC 1983 false arrest and unlawful search case should not have been granted. The statute of limitations had expired and the relation-back doctrine did not apply—police officers are not united in interest with the city:

CPLR 1024 provides that a “party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his name and identity as is known. If the name or remainder of the name becomes known all subsequent proceedings shall be taken under the true name and all prior proceedings shall be deemed amended accordingly.” “Yet, ‘parties are not to resort to the “Jane Doe” procedure unless they exercise due diligence, prior to the running of the statute of limitations, to identify the defendant by name and, despite such efforts, are unable to do so. Any failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the “Jane Doe’s” name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party'” … .

Here, the statute of limitations had expired by the time the defendants were identified in the second amended complaint. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the relation-back doctrine does not apply, because the defendants are not united in interest with the City … . The City “cannot be held vicariously liable for its employees’ violations of 42 USC § 1983, and there is no unity of interest in the absence of a relationship giving rise to such vicarious liability” … . Additionally, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he made diligent efforts to ascertain the defendants’ identities prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations or that the City hindered any such efforts … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the Supreme Court’s prior orders allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint to add the then-unknown defendants by name within a certain time period are not binding on these issues. The doctrine of the law of the case does not bind an appellate court … . Agosto v Maria, 2024 NY Slip Op 05950, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Here the motion to amend the complaint to identify “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants as police officers should have been denied because the statute of limitations had expired and the relation-back doctrine did not apply because police officers are not united in interest with the city which employs them.

 

,

A LIENHOLDER NONPARTY TO AN ACTION THAT RESULTED IN A FEE AWARD TO A DEBTOR MAY SUE TO RECOVER THOSE FEES WHERE THE LIENHOLDER WAS NEITHER JOINED NOR REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THAT ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing the Appellate Division, determined: “[a] lienholder nonparty to an action that resulted in a fee award against a debtor may challenge the legal basis of the judgment in a separate proceeding to recover those fees. We conclude that because the nonparty was neither joined nor required to intervene in the action against the debtor, it had no prior opportunity to challenge the award and thus is not barred from doing so in this proceeding … “.  Matter of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2024 NY Slip Op 05876, CtApp 11-26-24

 

, ,

IN THIS FIRE-DAMAGE CASE, THE INSURANCE POLICY IMPOSED A TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD; THE ACTION WAS NOT BROUGHT UNTIL SIX YEARS AFTER THE FIRE; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ANY DETAILS DEMONSTRATING WHY THE RESTORATION COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined plaintiff’s complaint in this fire-damage case was properly dismissed because the contractual two-year limitation period was exceeded and plaintiff made only conclusory allegations that the repairs could not be made within that two-year period:

On this motion to dismiss, the Tower/AmTrust defendants met their burden of establishing, by reference to the contract’s two-year suit limitation provision, that the action was time-barred because plaintiff did not commence it within two years of the fire, utterly refuting plaintiff’s factual allegations … . Nothing in plaintiff’s response raised any issue as to whether the provision should bar her claims. Plaintiff’s allegation that “[g]iven the massive structural damage wrought by the fire, the restoration of [plaintiff’s] property would have been [a] multi-year process under even the best of circumstances” is a conclusory statement that the suit limitation provision was unreasonable and is not logically inconsistent with the replacement of the property within the two-year limitation period. Here, plaintiff failed to allege actions that she took to complete the repairs within two years; she did not provide any details regarding the extent of the damage, other than that the damage was “massive” and the fire set off four alarms, or why complete restoration within two years was an impossibility. This bare-bones allegation stands in stark contrast to the plaintiff’s factual assertions in [Executive Plaza, LLC v Peerless Ins. Co. (22 NY3d 511)]. There, the plaintiff pleaded the specific remedial actions taken to restore the property, including retaining an architect and construction company, submitting a variance application, and seeking and obtaining building permits, which were not issued until 20 months after the property damage … . Most importantly, that plaintiff provided that these remedial actions were taken within the limitation period. All of this information is notably absent from plaintiff’s pleadings and motion response here. Farage v Associated Ins. Mgt. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05875, CtApp 11-26-24

Practice Point: Here the insurance contract imposed a two-year limitation on claims for the cost of fire-damage repair. Plaintiff did not bring the action until six years after the fire. The complaint was properly dismissed because it did not provide any details explaining why the repairs could not have been made during the two-year limitation period.

 

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