You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

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

 

, ,

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

 

, , ,

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

 

,

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

 

, ,

Criteria for Discovery in a Special Proceeding Explained/Criteria for Leave to File a Late Notice of Claim Explained

The Second Department determined petitioner’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim was properly denied, as was petitioner’s request for discovery prior to the hearing.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

In a special proceeding, where disclosure is available only by leave of the court (see CPLR 408), the Supreme Court has broad discretion in granting or denying disclosure …, although it must balance the needs of the party seeking discovery against such opposing interests as expediency and confidentiality … . Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, they failed to demonstrate that the requested discovery was necessary and that providing the requested discovery would not unduly delay this proceeding … .

In determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim, the court must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including whether (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the incident or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the petitioner had a reasonable excuse for the delay, and (3) the public corporation was prejudiced by the delay in its ability to maintain its defense on the merits (see Education Law § 3813[2-a]; General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]…). The injured petitioner’s assertion that she did not immediately appreciate the nature and severity of her injuries during the first 90 days after the subject incident is unavailing without supporting medical evidence explaining why the possible permanent effects of the injuries took so long to become apparent and to be diagnosed … . * * *

In addition, the petitioners failed to establish that the respondent acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or within a reasonable time thereafter … . * * *

Finally, the petitioners failed to establish that the respondent would not be substantially prejudiced in its defense on the merits by the significant delay should leave be granted … . Matter of Bramble v New York City Dept of Education, 2015 NY Slip Op 01450, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

,

Criteria for Vacation of a Stipulation of Settlement Not Met

In finding that the motion to vacate a stipulated settlement was properly denied, the Second Department explained the relevant analytical criteria:

“Settlements entered into in open court are binding and are not lightly cast aside” … . A stipulation is an independent contract which is subject to basic principles of contract law … . “Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” … . Mortgage Elec Registration Sys Inc v Kontarinis, 2015 NY Slip Op 01430, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

, ,

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

 

Criteria for Determining Motions to Dismiss Affirmative Defenses Explained

The Second Department explained the analytical criteria for determining motions to dismiss affirmative defenses:

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(b), “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more defenses, on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit” (CPLR 3211[b]). When moving to dismiss an affirmative defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the affirmative defense is “without merit as a matter of law” … . “In reviewing a motion to dismiss an affirmative defense, the court must liberally construe the pleadings in favor of the party asserting the defense and give that party the benefit of every reasonable inference” … . Bank of NY v Penalver, 2015 NY Slip Op 01407, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

, ,

Plaintiff Placed Her Mental Condition In Controversy—Defendant Entitled to Have Her Examined by a Psychiatrist

The First Department, in the context of an action for retaliatory discharge, sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, determined plaintiff had placed her mental condition in controversy and defendant was entitled to have plaintiff examined by a psychiatrist.  Plaintiff had alleged “extreme mental and physical anguish,” “severe anxiety,” eczema, hair pulling, depression and suicidal feelings:

Under these circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in determining that defendant had demonstrated that plaintiff had placed her mental condition “in controversy” by alleging unusually severe emotional distress, so that a mental examination by a psychiatrist is warranted to enable defendant to rebut her emotional distress claims (CPLR 3121[a]…). Although plaintiff asserts that an examination would be unduly intrusive into private matters, she did not propose conditions or seek a protective order limiting the scope or extent of the examination … . Clark v Allen & Overy LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 01398, 1st Dept 2-17-15

 

Further Proceedings Are Stayed When Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw Is Granted

The First Department noted that when plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw was granted, further proceedings against plaintiff were stayed pursuant to CPLR 321 (c):

When the court granted plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, further proceedings against plaintiff were stayed, by operation of CPLR 321(c), until 30 days after notice to appoint another attorney had been served upon her … . While the stay was in effect, the court had no power to decide defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Fan v Sabin, 2015 NY Slip Op 01400, 1st Dept 2-17-15