You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

CPLR 5239 Is the Proper Vehicle for Vacation of an Execution—Here Defendant’s Brother Brought a CPLR 5239 Proceeding to Vacate an Execution Against the Brother’s Property Which Purported to Relate to a Debt Owed by Defendant—The Execution Was Vacated Based Upon the Brother’s Proof of Ownership

The Second Department determined Kamel, a non-party, had demonstrated that he did not have an ownership interest in property which was executed against to satisfy a judgment against the defendant, Kamel’s brother. The court explained the procedure to vacate an execution pursuant to CPLR 5239:

Pursuant to CPLR 5239, “any interested person may commence a special proceeding against the judgment creditor or other person with whom a dispute exists to determine rights in the property or debt” (CPLR 5239…). The court may “vacate the execution or order, void the levy, direct the disposition of the property or debt, or direct that damages be awarded” and, if necessary, may hold a hearing to determine the proper disposition (CPLR 5239…). As the party seeking relief, “it [is the] petitioner’s burden to proffer evidence demonstrating that the property was not subject to the lien identified in the notice of sheriff’s sale” … .

At the hearing, Kamel presented mortgage documents relating to the purchase of the LIC property, as well as documents identifying him as the principal of the LLC which held legal title to that property and his own personal guaranty for the $1.45 million mortgage loan for that property. Accordingly, Kamel met his burden of demonstrating that the LIC property was not subject to execution … . Born to Build LLC v Saleh, 2015 NY Slip Op 01232, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

, ,

Telephone-Communication Buy-Sell Arrangements Sufficient for Long-Arm Jurisdiction/Forum Selection Clause In Invoices Not Enforceable Pursuant to UCC 207

The First Department determined that telephone communications re: the sale of diamonds between a seller in New York and a buyer in California were a sufficient basis for New York's long-arm jurisdiction over the California defendant.  The court further found that the forum selection clause and consent to jurisdiction in the relevant invoices were additional terms which, pursuant to UCC 207, were never expressly agreed to and therefore not enforceable:

UCC § 2-207 contemplates situations like the one here, where parties do business through an exchange of forms such as purchase orders and invoices. As the parties did here, merchants frequently include terms in their forms that were not discussed with the other side. UCC § 2-207[2] addresses that scenario, providing, “[t]he additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract. Between merchants such terms become part of the contract unless: … [b] they materially alter it.”

Here, during telephone discussions, the parties negotiated the essential terms required for contract formation, and the invoices were merely confirmatory … . Thus, the forum selection clause is an additional term that materially altered the parties' oral contracts, and defendant did not give its consent to that additional term … . …

… [T]he motion court erred in finding that the parties' telephone dealings over several years and in the two transactions at issue were insufficient as a matter of law to confer personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1). CPLR 302(a)(1) authorizes the assertion of long-arm jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary who “transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state.” CPLR 302(a)(1) is a “single act statute”; accordingly, physical presence is not required and one New York transaction is sufficient for personal jurisdiction. The statute applies where the defendant's New York activities were purposeful and substantially related to the claim … . ” Purposeful'” activities are defined as ” those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws'” … .

We recognize that courts of this state have generally held telephone communications to be insufficient for finding purposeful activity conferring personal jurisdiction … . However, there are exceptions to this general rule, and in some cases, telephone communications will, in fact, be sufficient to confer jurisdiction … . C Mahendra NY LLC v National Gold & Diamond Ctr Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01157, 1st Dept 2-10-15

 

Additional Information Constituted a “Supplemental” Bill of Particulars, Not an “Amended” Bill of Particulars—Motion In Limine Properly Denied

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion in limine because the bill of particulars was merely supplemented, not amended, by the additional information. The court also noted that the motion to preclude expert testimony was properly denied because there was no showing of a willful or intentional failure to disclose and no showing of prejudice:

“Where the plaintiff[s] seek[] to allege continuing consequences of the injuries suffered and described in previous bills of particulars, rather than new and unrelated injuries, the contested bill of particulars is a supplemental bill of particulars, rather than an amended bill of particulars' ” … . Here, plaintiffs' second supplemental bill of particulars alleged that plaintiff may require surgery in the future, which could involve anterior C5-6 and C6-7 discectomy and fusion. In addition, plaintiffs alleged “future cumulative economic loss” of between approximately $1,299,555.00 and $1,699,464.00. Plaintiffs had alleged in their prior bills of particulars that plaintiff may require surgery and that there would be a claim for future lost earnings. Thus, the portions of the second supplemental bill of particulars at issue were “an anticipated sequelae” of the injuries and damages previously alleged and did not allege new claims … . Sisemore v Leffler, 2015 NY Slip Op 01076, 4th Dept 2-6-15

 

,

An Action by a Judgment Creditor Pursuant to CPLR 5225 and 5227 Seeks both Legal and Equitable Relief—a Jury Trial Is Therefore Not Available

The Fourth Department determined an action to enforce a judgment against a party other than the judgment debtor (here a judgment creditor) under CPLR 5225 and 5227 is a proceeding for both legal and equitable relief for which a jury trial is not available:

“[T]he right to trial by jury is zealously protected in our jurisprudence and yields only to the most compelling circumstances” … . “Trial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain inviolate forever” (NY Const, art 1, § 2). “That guarantee extends to all causes of action to which the right attached at the time of adoption of the 1894 Constitution . . . Historically, however, actions at law were tried by a jury, [and] matters cognizable in equity were tried by the Chancellor. Even though the two systems have merged, vestiges of the law-equity dichotomy remain in the area relating to trial by jury” … .

Thus, the right to a jury trial “depends upon the nature of the relief sought” … . Under the CPLR, a jury trial is available in an action “in which a party demands and sets forth facts which would permit a judgment for a sum of money only” (CPLR 4101 [1] [emphasis added]). Where a plaintiff joins legal and equitable causes of action in a complaint, it waives its right to a jury trial … . * * *

…[W]e conclude that enforcement of a judgment under CPLR 5225 and 5227 against a party other than the judgment debtor is an outgrowth of the “ancient creditor's bill in equity,” which was used after all remedies at law had been exhausted. We thus conclude that [the judgment creditor's] use of CPLR 5225 and 5227 in this case is in furtherance of both legal and equitable relief and, therefore, that [the judgment creditor] is not entitled to a jury trial on those combined legal and equitable claims … . Matter of Colonial Sur Co v  Lakeview Advisors LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01002, 4th Dept 2-6-15

 

Court Did Not Conduct an Adequate Investigation Into the Allegation of Improper Outside Influence on the Jury Before Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the Verdict—Matter Sent Back for an Evidentiary Hearing

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court did not conduct an adequate investigation of alleged outside influence upon the jurors before granting plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict.  There was an allegation a person who worked for an insurance company which insured some of the defendants was “stalking” the jury during the trial:

It is well settled that the decision whether to grant a motion for a new trial pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) is committed to the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion … . Here, we agree with defendants that the court abused its discretion in the manner in which it investigated and determined the issue whether there had been improper outside influence on the jury that “was such as would be likely . . . to influence the verdict” … . Shortly after the trial had concluded and the jury was discharged, the court received notice of an allegation from one juror that a person attending the trial had been “stalking” the impaneled jurors on lunch breaks and during other recess periods. The juror described the individual's behavior as “creepy.” It was later learned that the individual was a representative of an insurance company monitoring the progress of the trial because it insured many of the defendants. As a result of the “stalking” allegation, the court conducted its own investigation and ultimately set aside the verdict, which had been entirely in defendants' favor, and ordered a new trial. We agree with defendants that the court abused its discretion in conducting an in camera interview of the complaining juror without notifying counsel, without seeking counsels' consent to that procedure …, and without providing counsel with an opportunity to be heard or to participate, even in some restricted manner, in the interview of the juror … . Further, the court limited its investigation to one juror, and we conclude that the court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a more expanded investigation, including, at a minimum, conducting an interview of all of the jurors … . Lastly, the court abused its discretion in prohibiting counsel from contacting any jurors until after plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict was decided. This unnecessary prohibition essentially precluded defendants from obtaining and submitting any meaningful opposition to plaintiff's motion, the practical result being that the granting of plaintiff's motion was a foregone conclusion. Varano v Forba Holdings LLX 2015 NY Slip OP 01090, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

Action Challenging a City Resolution to Sell City Property to an Identified Purchaser Is a Challenge to an Administrative Act and Is Therefore Governed by the Four-Month “Article 78” Statute of Limitations

The Fourth Department determined the four-month “Article 78” statute of limitations applied to a challenge to a city resolution allowing the sale of city property to a particular, named purchaser  (which was an administrative act).  The action, therefore, was properly dismissed as time-barred. The court explained how an action is analyzed to determine the nature of it for purposes of applying the correct statute of limitations:

The causes of action under General Municipal Law § 51 have no specific limitations period, and we must “examine the substance of th[e] action to identify the relationship out of which the claim[s] arise[] and the relief sought” … . “If the rights of the parties may be resolved in a different form of proceeding for which a specific limitations period applies, then we must use that period” … . Ultimately, “the nature of the remedy rather than the theory of liability is the salient consideration in ascertaining the applicable [s]tatute of [l]imitations” … . Here, plaintiffs are challenging the resolution authorizing defendant Mayor to execute a purchase and sale agreement for the garage. The resolution was an administrative act, rather than a legislative act, inasmuch as it applies only to the City and [the purchaser]… . It is well established that the proper vehicle for challenging an administrative act is a CPLR article 78 proceeding, and thus the four-month statute of limitations under CPLR 217 applies … . Riverview Dev LLC v City of Oswego, 2015 NY Slip Op 01105, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

No Statute of Limitations Applies to an Owner Seeking to Have an Apparent Encumbrance Struck from the Record

The Fourth Department determined the six-year statute of limitations did not apply to an owner in possession of land who seeks to have an apparent encumbrance discharged from the record.  Supreme Court erred when it determined a six-year statute began to run when a tax deed erroneously purported to transfer the property:

“It is well settled that an owner in possession has a right to invoke the aid of a court of equity at any time while he is so the owner and in possession, to have an apparent, though in fact not a real incumbrance discharged from the record and such right is never barred by the [s]tatute of [l]imitations. It is a continuing right which exists as long as there is an occasion for its exercise” … . Indeed, “[a] [s]tatute of [l]imitations is one of repose designed to put an end to stale claims and was never intended to compel resort to legal remedies by one who is in complete enjoyment of all he claims . . . The logic of such a view is inescapably correct, for otherwise, the recording of the deed resulting from such a proceeding would transform the owner's absolute title in fee simple into a right of action only, the exercise of which is subject to time limitation” … .

We conclude that, inasmuch as plaintiff and his predecessors in interest have always held title and have been in continuous possession of the disputed property, the tax deed to defendants' predecessor in interest was void with respect to the disputed property because the County of Onondaga could not convey an interest in land that it did not have … . Indeed, “[a] purchaser who fails to use due diligence in examining the title is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed” … . Here, due diligence on the part of defendants would have disclosed the error in the 1959 transfer of the disputed property. Crain v Mannise, 2015 NY Slip Op 01109, 4th Dept 2-6-15


,

Proper Way to Handle an Inconsistent Verdict Explained

The Second Department explained the proper procedure when a verdict is inconsistent (either have the jury reconsider the verdict or order a new trial):

“When a jury’s verdict is internally inconsistent, the trial court must direct either reconsideration by the jury or a new trial” … . Here, the jury’s verdict was internally inconsistent, as the jury attributed 10% of the fault for the plaintiff’s accident to both the plaintiff and [one of the two defendants], despite having found that their negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident … . The Supreme Court should have resolved the substantial juror confusion, as demonstrated by the internally inconsistent verdict, by either resubmitting the case to the jury for reconsideration or directing a new trial on the issue of liability (see CPLR 4111[c]…). Kumar v PI Assoc LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00849, 2nd Dept 2-4-15

 

Party Moving for a Change of Venue Must Demonstrate the Change Will Better Serve the Convenience of Material Witnesses

In affirming the denial of a motion for a change of venue, the Second Department explained the criteria:

“The party moving for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3) has the burden of demonstrating that the convenience of material witnesses would be better served by the change” … . In doing so, the moving party must set forth: (1) the names, addresses, and occupations of material witnesses, (2) the facts to which these witnesses will testify at trial, (3) a showing that those witnesses are willing to testify, and (4) a showing that those witnesses would be inconvenienced if the venue of the action was not changed … . MI v Trinity-Pawling School, 2015 NY Slip Op 00852, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


, ,

Despite Mandatory Language In the Statute Requiring that an Action Against a School District Be Brought in the County Where the School District Is Located, the Court Has the Discretion to Grant a Motion for a Change of Venue Based Upon the Convenience of Material Witnesses and the Absence of Prejudice to the School District

The Second Department determined that, despite the mandatory language of CPLR 504, a change of venue based upon the convenience of witness was appropriate in an action against a school district:

CPLR 504 provides, in relevant part, that “the place of trial of all actions against . . . school districts . . . shall be . . . in the county in which such . . . school district . . . is situated” (CPLR 504[2]…). “The purpose of CPLR 504, which applies not just to school districts but also to counties, cities, towns, and villages, is to protect municipal entities and their employees from the inconvenience of an alternative venue … . “Nevertheless, and despite the seemingly unforgiving language of the statute, venue may be changed to a non-mandated county upon a showing of special circumstances” … . The decision of whether to grant a change of venue is committed to the providently exercised discretion of the trial court … .

Here, the plaintiff established that the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice outweigh the asserted governmental inconvenience … . The plaintiff produced the affirmations from his treating physicians, both of whom maintain a surgical practice in Kings County, and an affidavit from an eyewitness to the accident, who resides in Kings County … . Each prospective witness disclosed the facts underlying his proposed testimony and asserted that he will be inconvenienced if the trial were conducted in Suffolk County rather than in Kings County … . The defendant, however, did not assert that any of its employees witnessed the accident … . Furthermore, the defendant failed to establish that any of its trial witnesses would be inconvenienced by traveling to Kings County. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 510(3) to change the venue of the action from Suffolk County to Kings County. Xhika v Rocky Point Union Free School Dist, 2015 NY Slip OP 00874,d 2nd Dept 2-4-15


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