,

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


,

Four-Month Statute of Limitations Starts Running When Administrative Agency’s Policy Change Is “Readily Ascertainable,” Not When Notice of the Policy Change Is Actually Received

The Third Department explained when the four-month statute of limitations begins to run when the triggering event is a policy memorandum issued by an administrative agency:

…[B]oth the statute and case law make clear that the statute of limitations period for a CPLR article 78 proceeding begins to run when “the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner” (CPLR 217 [1]…). Such determination, in turn, “becomes ‘final and binding’ when two requirements are met: completeness (finality) of the determination and exhaustion of administrative remedies. First, the agency must have reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury and second, the injury inflicted may not be . . . significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party” … . In the context of quasi-legislative determinations such as the one at issue here, actual notice of the challenged determination is not required in order to start the statute of limitations clock; rather, the statute of limitations begins to run once the administrative agency’s “definitive position on the issue [becomes] readily ascertainable” to the complaining party … . Matter of School Adm’rs Assn of NY State v New York State Department of Civ Serv, 2015 NY Slip Op 00676, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

Cause of Action Based Upon a Legal Theory Which Could Have Been Raised in a Prior Action Stemming from the Same Events Precluded by the Doctrine of Res Judicata

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed a cause of action which originated from the same events which gave rise to a prior action and merely relied on a different legal theory than was raised in the prior action.  The court explained the criteria for the application of the doctrine of res judicata:

” Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding'” … . “Res judicata thus operates to preclude the renewal of issues actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding as well as claims for different relief which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding'” … .

The third cause of action asserted herein could have been raised in a prior action …, as it originates from the same events which gave rise to the prior action, and merely relies upon a different legal theory. Pedote v STP Assoc LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00738, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(4)—Action Was Not “Sufficiently Similar” to Pending Action

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed an action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(4) because the dismissed action was not “sufficiently similar” to a pending action.  The initial personal injury action stemmed from alleged Labor Law violations. The second action, alleging a fraudulent conveyance, stemmed from the defendant’s transfer of the property where plaintiff was injured:

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), a court has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed on the ground that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action … . A court may dismiss an action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same … . It is not necessary that “the precise legal theories presented in the first action also be presented in the second action” … . The critical element is whether both suits arise out of the same subject matter or series of alleged wrongs … .

Here, the personal injury action and the instant action do not arise out of the same subject matter or series of alleged wrongs, and do not seek the same or substantially similar relief. The personal injury action arises from the defendants’ alleged breach of Labor Law § 200 and the common-law duty to provide a safe workplace, and their alleged violations of the safety requirements imposed on property owners by Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The sole relief sought in the personal injury action is a money judgment for damages. The instant action arises from the post-accident transfer …, and the plaintiff seeks various relief authorized by Debtor and Creditor Law article 10, including setting aside the alleged fraudulent conveyance. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the claims asserted in both actions are not “sufficiently similar” to warrant dismissal simply because the plaintiff raised an argument pertaining to constructive fraud as a basis for the imposition of liability … for violation of Labor Law § 240(1) in the personal injury action. Jadron v 10 Leonard St LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00730, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

,

Criteria for Denial of Coverage Based Upon Noncooperation of the Insured Party Explained/Default Judgment In Favor of Defendant American States Re: Other Defendants Did Not Preclude, Under the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel, Plaintiff’s Direct Action Against American States

The Second Department determined a question of fact existed about whether the “noncooperation-of-an-insured-party” rationale for denying coverage applied.  The court noted that a prior default judgment in favor of defendant American States re: other defendants did not preclude, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, plaintiff’s direct action against American States:

American States prevailed in that declaratory judgment action against the defendants in the underlying action which determined that American States is not obligated to defend and indemnify the defendants in the underlying action. However, those orders were entered upon the underlying defendants’ default, and thus, did not collaterally estop the plaintiff from bringing the instant, direct action against American States pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2) … . …

The noncooperation of an insured party in the defense of an action is a ground upon which an insurer may deny coverage, and may be asserted by the insurer as a defense in an action on a judgment by an injured party pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2) … . In order to establish a proper disclaimer based on its insured’s alleged noncooperation, an insurer is required to demonstrate that “it acted diligently in seeking to bring about its insured’s cooperation, that its efforts were reasonably calculated to obtain its insured’s cooperation, and that the attitude of its insured, after the cooperation of its insured was sought, was one of wilful [sic] and avowed obstruction'” … . The insurer has a “heavy” burden of proving lack of cooperation … . Here, the submissions of the American States defendants were insufficient to sustain their prima facie burden on the cross motion for summary judgment, with respect to American States. West St Props LLC v American States Ins Co, 2015 NY Slip Op 00751, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

Right-to-Intervene Criteria Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)

The Second Department described the criteria for intervening in an action (criteria not met here):

Upon a timely motion, a person is permitted to intervene in an action as of right, “1. when a statute of the state confers an absolute right to intervene; or 2. when the representation of the person’s interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment; or 3. when the action involves the disposition or distribution of, or the title or a claim for damages for injury to, property and the person may be affected adversely by the judgment” (CPLR 1012[a]). Additionally, upon a timely motion, the court, in its discretion, may permit a person to intervene, “when a statute of the state confers a right to intervene . . . or when the person’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” (CPLR 1013). In exercising its discretion, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay the determination of the action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party (see id.).  Wells Fargo Bank NA v Mazzara, 2015 NY Slip Op 00750, 2nd Dept 1-28-15