You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

Charitable Trust’s Challenge to Tax Foreclosure Time-Barred—Four-Month Statute of Limitations Applies to Action for Declaratory Judgment—RPTL, not the EPTL, Controls

The Third Department determined the action challenging the tax foreclosure on parcels of land owned by a charitable trust set up to hold land for Native Americans must be dismissed as time-barred.  The court further determined that County Court had subject matter jurisdiction because the matter was subject to the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL), not the Estates Powers and Trust Law (EPTL), and there was, therefore, no requirement that the Attorney General be notified of the tax foreclosure proceedings:

Under RPTL article 7, a property owner claiming to be aggrieved by an assessment of real property on the basis that the assessment is excessive, unequal or unlawful, or that the property is misclassified, may file a petition challenging the assessment, but “such a proceeding shall be commenced within thirty days after the final completion and filing of the assessment roll containing such assessment” (RPTL 702 [2]; see RPTL 704 [1]; 706 [1]). Where a party is alleging that the assessment is void — either through a challenge to the methodology of assessment or the jurisdiction of the taxing authority to assess particular property — the party may instead bring a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 or a declaratory judgment action … . Both of those options are governed by a four-month statute of limitations … . The Court of Appeals has expressly rejected plaintiffs’ argument that, because the property is allegedly mandatorily exempt from taxes, the assessment is illegal and void and may be challenged at any time … . Plaintiffs concede that they had notice of the Town’s determination regarding the taxable status of the parcels, and filed a grievance to administratively challenge the tax bills when the property was first listed as not tax exempt, but they failed to appeal when the Town denied the grievance. Plaintiffs did not file any further grievances, actions or proceedings until they commenced this action more than a year after the final foreclosure proceeding was concluded. Accordingly, while an action for declaratory judgment was a proper method, the statute of limitations bars plaintiffs’ challenges to their tax assessments … . Turtle Is Trust v County of Clinton, 2015 NY Slip Op 01698, 3rd Dept 2-26-15

 

, , ,

Re: Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Fraud Causes of Action—Application of the “Repudiation Rule” and the “Discovery Rule” to the Statute of Limitations Explained

Plaintiff (a governmental agency charged with administering the workers’ compensation system) brought this action against workers’ compensation trusts alleging the trusts became insolvent because of defendants’ misconduct. Plaintiff alleged breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of contract and sought common law indemnification. The bulk of the decision is devoted to determining the timeliness of the actions. The decision addressed the “repudiation rule” and the “discovery rule” in fraud actions, as well as many other issues not summarized here:

…[T]he repudiation rule, which provides that “the applicable statutory period . . . does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated” … . The Court of Appeals has instructed that, under the repudiation rule, “the time starts running when a successor [fiduciary] is put in place” … . After the fiduciary “has yielded . . . to a successor, . . . [t]he running of the statute [of limitations] then begins, and only actual or intentional fraud will be effective to suspend it” … . * * * … [T]he repudiation rule acts as a toll of the limitations period for all misconduct committed by the fiduciary prior to repudiation of its obligation or termination of the relationship. In other words, all of the alleged misconduct prior to the severance date is included in the actionable portion of the claim. * * *

…[A] portion of plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim is grounded in its allegations that the … defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the trusts by fraudulently concealing or misrepresenting the financial condition of the trusts, the danger of operating deficits and issues associated with underwriting deficiencies, and that [defendants] did so as part of a scheme to increase membership and thereby increase its own commissions. These are fraud allegations, and they are essential to this portion of the fiduciary duty claim. That is, the relevant portion of the claim is “based on fraud” and “there would be no injury but for the fraud” … . As such, that portion of the fiduciary duty claim is subject to a six-year limitations period … . * * *

The “discovery rule” is found in CPLR 213 (8), which provides that claims based on fraud “must be commenced [within] the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time [a] plaintiff . . . discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.” It is settled that “[t]he inquiry as to whether a plaintiff could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud turns on whether the plaintiff was possessed of knowledge of facts from which [the fraud] could be reasonably inferred” … . New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd v Consolidated Risk Servs Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01699, 3rd Dept 2-26-15

 

, ,

Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Termination of a Firefighter Runs from the Effective Date of Termination, Not the Date of Notification

The Second Department noted that the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the termination of a probationary firefighter ran from the effective date of the termination, not the date of notification of the termination:

“[A] proceeding against a body or officer must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner” (CPLR 217[1]). Where, as here, a governmental employee is not entitled to a hearing in connection with his or her discharge, the limitations period for commencing a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge that discharge “runs from the notice of discharge or the effective date of discharge, if later” … .

Here, although the petitioner was notified of the termination of his probationary employment by letter dated September 13, 2013, and was told not to report for further shifts, the notice set the effective termination date of the petitioner’s probationary employment as September 23, 2013. Accordingly, … the statute of limitations began to run on September 23, 2013. Matter of Bruno v Greenville Fire Dist, 2015 NY Slip Op 01630, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

, ,

Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) and Town’s Ruling on Proper Remedial Measures for a Hazardous Waste Site Was Restarted When a Different Factual Presentation Was Invited

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and determined that a recent reconsideration of the proper remedial measures for a hazardous waste site on petitioner’s property restarted the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s)/Town’s ruling, even though the conclusion reached after reconsideration was the same as was reached in 1995:

“[A] proceeding against a body or officer must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner (CPLR 217[1]). An administrative determination becomes final and binding’ when (1) the administrative agency reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury; and (2) the injury inflicted may not be significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party'” … .

In general, a request for discretionary reconsideration does not serve to extend the statute of limitations or render an otherwise final determination nonfinal … . This is because “[a] motion to reconsider generally seeks the same relief, and advances factual and legal issues that were previously litigated at the administrative level” … .

However, where “the agency conducts a fresh and complete examination of the matter based on newly presented evidence,” an aggrieved party may seek review in a CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced within four months of the new determination … .

Here, a different factual presentation was invited … by the DEC, and conducted by the Town. Matter of Riverso v New York State Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2015 NY Slip Op 01644, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

Motion for Discontinuance Without Prejudice Should Not Have Been Granted Because It Allowed Movant to Escape Potentially Adverse Determinations

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiffs’ motion for a discontinuance without prejudice, a motion made in response to defendant’s (Parkway’s) motion to dismiss for failure to respond to Parkway’s 90-day notice:

“A motion for leave to discontinue an action without prejudice should be granted unless there are reasons which would justify its denial” … . Such a determination “rests within the sound discretion of the court,” and the motion should be granted “[i]n the absence of special circumstances, such as prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant, or other improper consequences” …, including an adverse determination of the court …, or the consequences of a potentially adverse determination … .

Here, the plaintiffs cross-moved, inter alia, for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice in response to Parkway’s separate motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to timely respond to its 90-day notice. The Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice allowed the plaintiffs to avoid the potentially adverse consequences of having failed to timely respond to Parkway’s 90-day notice (see CPLR 3216), and an adverse determination of Parkway’s motion for summary judgment. Baez v Parkway Mobile Homes Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01596, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

Plaintiff Need Not Submit Any Evidence In Response to a Motion to Dismiss Alleging Failure to State a Cause of Action, Even If Defendant Does

The Second Department explained how a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211(a)(7)) should be handled when evidence is submitted in support of the motion.  The court noted that the plaintiff need not submit any evidence and can stand on the pleadings alone:

“A court is, of course, permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7)” … . “If the court considers evidentiary material, the criterion then becomes whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one'” … . “Yet, affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that the plaintiff has no cause of action” … . The plaintiff “may not be penalized for failure to make an evidentiary showing in support of a complaint that states a claim on its face” … . The plaintiff may stand on his or her pleading alone to state all the necessary elements of a cognizable cause of action, and, unless the motion to dismiss is converted by the court to a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff will not be penalized because he or she has not made an evidentiary showing in support of the complaint … . In light of these standards, it is clear that the defendant’s motion should have been denied. The complaint stated a cause of action, and the defendant’s submissions did not “conclusively establish that the plaintiff has no cause of action” … . Clarke v Laidlaw Tr Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01602, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

, ,

Lack of Standing Defense Waived If Not Raised In Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Lack of Standing Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect–Sua Sponte Dismissal on that Ground Improper

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint seeking foreclosure and sale on the ground plaintiff lacked standing.  The defendants did not answer the complaint or make a pre-answer motion to dismiss, so the lack of standing defense was waived:

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 and cancellation of the notice of pendency. Since the defendants did not answer the complaint, and did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . 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 … . HSBC Bank USA NA v Simmons, 2015 NY Slip Op 01609, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

,

Findings in a Sanctions Proceeding Against an Attorney Should Not Have Been Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in an Attorney-Disciplinary Proceeding

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division finding that sanctions imposed upon an attorney, stemming from the attorney’s representation of a client in a civil matter, should not have been given collateral estoppel effect in an attorney-disciplinary proceeding:

This case is distinguishable from Matter of Levy (37 NY2d 279, 281 [1975]), where we determined that it was neither unreasonable nor unfair to impose collateral estoppel in a disciplinary proceeding after the attorney had been convicted of a criminal offense. There, we held that the attorney would not be permitted to relitigate the issue of guilt after he was convicted following a criminal trial, at “which rigorous safeguards were imposed to insure against an unjust conviction” … .

By contrast, the determination here was made on papers — without cross-examination or the opportunity to call witnesses. … While the issue of whether [the attorney] had made false statements in her written declaration concerning her prior knowledge of [an annuity] agreement may have been relevant, it was certainly not the focus of the hearing … . The cursory nature of the sanctions proceeding itself failed to provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Matter of Dunn, 2015 NY Slip Op 01556, CtApp 2-24-15

 

, , ,

Because the Landlord Engaged in Fraud, the Four-Year Rent-Overcharge Statute of Limitations Runs Back Four Years from When the Rent Overcharge Action Was Brought/Criteria for Collateral Estoppel Explained (Not Met Here)/Question of Fact Re: Piercing Corporate Veil

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined that the four-year statute of limitations in rent-overcharge actions, where the landlord engaged in fraud, does not begin to run when the first overcharge payment is made, but rather extends back four years from when the overcharge action is brought.  Here there was evidence the landlord used a fictitious tenant and rent to justify the rent charged the tenants.  The landlord argued the tenants’ action was time-barred because it was brought more than four years after the first overcharge payment was made. In addition to the statute-of-limitations ruling, the Court of Appeals held the collateral estoppel doctrine was not correctly applied by the courts below and there was a question of fact whether the corporate veil should be pierced due to the principal’s control over the corporate-landlord and the principal’s fraudulent acts:

Julie Conason (Conason) and Geoffrey Bryant (Bryant) (collectively, tenants) are the rent-stabilized tenants of an apartment in a residential building in Manhattan. Megan Holding LLC (Megan) is the building’s owner and tenants’ landlord. … Conason asserted an overcharge claim against Megan in April 2009, almost five and one-half years after she occupied the apartment under a vacancy lease. The principal issue on this appeal is whether CPLR 213-a’s four-year statute of limitations completely bars this claim. Because of the unrefuted proof of fraud in the record, we conclude that section 213-a merely limits tenants’ recovery to those overcharges occurring during the four-year period immediately preceding Conason’s rent challenge, and that the lawful rent on the base date must be determined by using the default formula devised by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR or the agency) … . * * *

CPLR 213-a fixes a four-year statute of limitations for claims of residential rent overcharge; specifically, this provision states that

“[a]n action on a residential rent overcharge shall be commenced within four years of the first overcharge alleged and no determination of an overcharge and no award or calculation of an award of the amount of any overcharge may be based upon an overcharge having occurred more than four years before the action is commenced. This section shall preclude examination of the rental history of the housing accommodation prior to the four-year period immediately preceding the commencement of the action” (emphasis added) (CPLR 213-a; see also Rent Stabilization Law [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516 [a] [2]; Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR 2520.6 [f]; 2526.1 [a] [2]). * * *

Collateral estoppel comes into play when four conditions are fulfilled:

“(1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and decided, (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits” … . … . …

Civil Court’s findings of fraud are not entitled to preclusive effect because two of the four prerequisites for collateral estoppel are unmet: the issues in Civil Court (breach of the warranty of habitability) and Supreme Court (evidence of fraud sufficient to render the rent on the base date unreliable) are not identical (the first condition), and findings of fraud were not necessary to support the judgment entered on the April 8th order, which awarded tenants rent abatement on account of Megan’s breach of the warranty of habitability and directed Megan to remedy code violations (the fourth condition). Conason v Megan Holding LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01553, CtApp 2-24-15

 

, ,

Some of the Requirements for the Application of Attorney Work-Product and Trial-Preparation Privileges Explained

The Second Department explained some of the requirements for the application of attorney work-product and trial-preparation privileges:

Attorney work product under CPLR 3101(c), which is subject to an absolute privilege, is generally limited to materials prepared by an attorney, while acting as an attorney, which contain his or her legal analysis, conclusions, theory, or strategy … . “[T]he mere fact that a narrative witness statement is transcribed by an attorney is not sufficient to render the statement work product'” … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, she did not meet her burden of establishing that the audio recording of an interview she conducted with the defendant Nicoletta Starks prior to the commencement of the instant action constituted attorney work product. Among other things, the plaintiff failed to show that the recording contained elements of opinion, analysis, theory, or strategy … .

The plaintiff argues, in the alternative, that the recording constitutes trial preparation material, which is subject to a conditional privilege under CPLR 3101(d)(2). However, the conclusory assertions set forth in her supporting affidavit are insufficient to meet her burden of establishing, with specificity, that the recording was prepared “exclusively in anticipation of litigation” … . Geffner v Mercy Med Ctr, 2015 NY Slip Op 01411, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

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