With respect to an Article 78 proceeding to contest a determination of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, the four-month statute of limitations began when petitioner’s attorney received the Commissioner’s order, not when the order was served on petitioner. Matter of Sutherland v New York State Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2014 NY Slip Op 07674, 2nd Dept 11-12-14
In the context of an action for a declaratory judgment concerning the legality of the collective bargaining agreement (re: the waiver of seniority rights), the Second Department explained how a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) [failure to state a cause of action] should be considered:
A motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action prior to the service of an answer presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration'” … . “Thus, where a cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court’s power to render a declaratory judgment . . . as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy, a motion to dismiss that cause of action should be denied'” … . A court may reach “the merits of a properly pleaded cause of action for a declaratory judgment upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where no questions of fact are presented [by the controversy]'” … . Under such circumstances, the motion to dismiss the cause of action for failure to state a cause of action “should be taken as a motion for a declaration in the defendant’s favor and treated accordingly”… . Bregman v East Ramapo Cent Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 07610, 2nd Dept 11-12-14
In affirming the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, the Second Department explained the relevant analysis when documentary proof is submitted by a defendant in connection with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursunt to CPLR 3211(a)(7). The action was brought by an attorney who had been discharged for cause by his clients prior to the settlement of a personal injury action:
In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Where, however, a defendant has submitted evidence in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion has not been converted into one for summary judgment, the criterion is whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether he or she has stated one, and, “unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the [plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, . . . dismissal should not eventuate” … . Dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) is warranted if the evidentiary proof disproves an essential allegation of the complaint, even if the allegations of the complaint, standing alone, could withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action … . * * *
A client has the right to discharge his or her attorney at any time … . While an attorney who is discharged without cause before the completion of services may recover the reasonable value of his or her services in quantum meruit, an attorney who is discharged for cause is not entitled to any compensation or lien … . Here, the court held a hearing pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.13(b) with respect to the plaintiff’s cross motion for attorney’s fees. The court determined that the plaintiff was properly discharged for cause, and, therefore, was not entitled to recover in quantum meruit. Siskin v Cassar, 2014 NY Slip Op 07646, 2nd Dept 11-12-14
The Second Department noted that the remedy for addressing fraud in a completed action is a motion to vacate the judgment in that action, not a new plenary proceeding:
“Generally, a party who has lost a case as a result of alleged fraud or false testimony cannot collaterally attack the judgment in a separate action for damages against the party who adduced the false evidence” … . The “plaintiff’s remedy lies exclusively in that lawsuit itself, i.e., by moving pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the . . . judgment due to its fraudulent procurement, not a second plenary action collaterally attacking the judgment in the original action” … . Stewart v Citimortgage Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07648, 2nd Dept 11-12-14
The Second Department explained that, in a declaratory judgment action against a town challenging a local law, the town board is not a necessary party:
A “court may at any stage of a case and on its own motion determine whether there is a nonjoinder of necessary parties” … . “In a matter seeking a declaratory judgment challenging a legislative act, the legislative body that enacted the challenged law or ordinance is a necessary party” … .
In this declaratory judgment action against the Town of Huntington, challenging a Local Law enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Huntington (hereinafter the Town Board), the Supreme Court, sua sponte, directed the joinder of the Town Board as a defendant on the ground that it is a necessary party without which the action cannot proceed. However, a town board “shall be vested with all the powers of such a town” (Town Law § 60[1]) and “cannot and does not exist separately and independently from the town of which it is the governing body . . . [T]he acts of a town board when performed under statutory authority are the acts of the town” … . Accordingly, as the Town is a party defendant in this action, it was unnecessary for the court to have directed the joinder of the Town Board as a defendant … . Dish Realty LLC v Town of Huntington, 2014 NY Slip Op 07616, 2nd Dept 11-12-14
The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s finding that New York courts had jurisdiction over plaintiff’s personal injury action. Plaintiff was injured by an allegedly defective saw provided by the defendants while doing work for defendants at the defendants’ home in New Jersey. Jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302 was lacking because there was no real connection between the the defendants’ activities in New York (they ran a church in New York) and the personal injury action. Jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 301 was lacking because CPLR 301 does not apply to individuals, as opposed to corporations, doing business in New York:
In order to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists under CPLR 302(a)(1), a court must determine (1) whether the defendant transacted business in New York and, if so, (2) whether the cause of action asserted arose from that transaction … .
The Court of Appeals has interpreted the second prong of the jurisdictional inquiry to require that, in light of all the circumstances, there must be an “articulable nexus” … , between a defendant’s in-state activity and the claim asserted … . Although “causation is not required,” the Court of Appeals has stated that “at a minimum [there must be] a relatedness between the transaction and the legal claim such that the latter is not completely unmoored from the former” … . “[W]here at least one element arises from the New York contacts, the relationship between the business transaction and the claim asserted supports specific jurisdiction under the statute” … .
Here, the relationship between the causes of action asserted in the complaint and the [defendants’] activities within New York were too insubstantial to warrant a New York court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1). * * *
In contrast to the common-law approach to corporations, the common law, as developed through case law predating the enactment of CPLR 301, did not include any recognition of general jurisdiction over an individual based upon that individual’s cumulative business activities within the State … . Since the enactment of CPLR 301 did not expand the scope of the existing jurisdictional authority of the courts of the State of New York, that section does not permit the application of the “doing business” test to individual defendants … . Accordingly, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, since the [defendants] were served with process in New Jersey, the Supreme Court was not authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to CPLR 301, based on their cumulative individual business activities within the State. Pichardo v Zayas, 2014 NY Slip Op 07639, 2nd Dept 11-12-14
The Second Department held that Supreme Court properly amended the pleadings sua sponte and properly allowed the plaintiff to reopen its case to present additional proof:
A court may amend pleadings before or after judgment to conform them to the evidence (see CPLR 3025[c]). Where no prejudice is shown, an amendment may be allowed during or even after trial … . Furthermore, an application for a continuance or adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the grant or denial thereof will be upheld on appellate review if the trial court providently exercised its discretion … . A trial court, in the exercise of discretion and for sufficient reasons, may allow a party to reopen his or her case, and supplement the evidence to cure any defects in the evidence that have inadvertently occurred … .
Here, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in, sua sponte, amending the pleadings, continuing the trial, and permitting the plaintiff to reopen its case to present additional proof of damages … . MRI Enters Inc v Comprehensive Med Care of NY PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07482, 2nd Dept 11-5-14
In a proceeding to liquidate the Executive Life Insurance Company of New York, non-party attorneys for objectors to the liquidation filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in violation of anti-suit injunctive orders issued by Supreme Court. In affirming Supreme Court’s finding the non-party attorneys in contempt, the Second Department explained the criteria:
To prevail on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the movant must demonstrate that the alleged contemnor violated a clear and unequivocal court order, of which the alleged contemnor had knowledge, thereby prejudicing a right of a party to the litigation (see Judiciary Law § 753[A][3]…). “To satisfy the prejudice element, it is sufficient to allege and prove that the contemnor’s actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party” … .
* * * The commencement of the class action violated the anti-suit injunctive provisions set forth in three court orders entered in this rehabilitation proceeding commenced pursuant to Insurance Law article 74, that was later converted into a liquidation proceeding … . An order of the court must be obeyed until that order is set aside, either by appeal or otherwise, where, as here, the court that issued the order had jurisdiction to issue it … . The petitioner also demonstrated that the commencement of the class action prejudiced its rights … . Matter of Executive Life Ins Co of NY, 2014 NY Slip Op 07506, 2nd Dept 11-5-14
In affirming Supreme Court’s finding the actions time-barred, the Second Department explained when the one-year statute of limitations starts to run in false arrest (release from confinement), false imprisonment (release from confinement), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (date of arrest) causes of action. Supreme Court had also dismissed the malicious prosecution cause of action on the ground that the “interest of justice” dismissal of the accusatory instrument in the underlying criminal case was not a favorable termination of the criminal action. The Second Department disagreed, reinstated that cause of action and described the relevant analysis:
Here, the Supreme Court concluded that the underlying criminal proceeding, in which the accusatory instrument was dismissed in the interest of justice … , was not terminated in the plaintiff’s favor. This conclusion is incorrect. “[A]ny termination of a criminal prosecution, such that the criminal charges may not be brought again, qualifies as a favorable termination, so long as the circumstances surrounding the termination are not inconsistent with the innocence of the accused” … .
In Cantalino [96 NY2d 391], the Court of Appeals considered whether the dismissal of a criminal proceeding in the interest of justice was a ” favorable termination'” for purposes of a malicious prosecution action … . The Court explained that there was no “per se rule that a dismissal in the interest of justice can never constitute a favorable termination” … . Rather, the Court set forth a “case-specific rule,” whereby the courts are to determine whether, “under the circumstances of each case, the disposition was inconsistent with the innocence of the accused” … . In the case before it, the Court of Appeals concluded that the interest-of-justice dismissal constituted a favorable termination, citing the Criminal Court’s indication that it was dismissing the charges because they were unfounded … . It contrasted the case before it with a prior case, Ward v Silverberg (85 NY2d 993), in which it had found that an interest-of-justice dismissal was not a favorable termination of the criminal proceeding. The Court explained that, in Ward, unlike in Cantalino, the Criminal Court had “recognized that [the] plaintiff had committed the charged conduct, [but] it did not believe a criminal sanction was appropriate” … . Thus, “the criminal charges in Ward were dismissed out of mercy” … . A dismissal out of mercy “is fundamentally inconsistent with the accused’s innocence” … .
In the present case, the criminal charges against the plaintiff were not dismissed out of mercy. Rather, they were dismissed based upon “the weakness of the proof of guilt” … , a conclusion which is not inconsistent with the plaintiff’s innocence … . Bellissimo v Mitchell, 2014 NY 07464, 2nd Dept 11-5-14
The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted defendants’ motion to dismiss based upon the forum selection clause in the relevant contract. Plaintiff rebutted the presumption of the validity of the clause:
A party seeking dismissal of a complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(1) must submit documentary evidence that ” conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law'” … . A contract provision may constitute documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1) …, and a forum selection clause contained in a contract may provide a proper basis for dismissal of a complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . A forum selection clause is “prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court” … . Accordingly, a forum selection clause will be given effect in the absence of a ” strong showing'” that it should be set aside … .
Here, the plaintiff has made the requisite strong showing that the forum selection clause in the nondisclosure agreement was “unreasonable.” Specifically, the plaintiff has contended, without contradiction, that neither the parties nor the agreement has any connection to the State of Delaware: none of the parties is located in Delaware, the nondisclosure agreement was not executed in Delaware, and performance of the agreement was not to take place in Delaware … . Accordingly, the prima facie enforceability and validity of the forum selection clause has been rebutted and, therefore, that clause does not “conclusively establish[ ] a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law”… . US Mdse Inc v L & R Distribs Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07495, 2nd Dept 11-5-14
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy