You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Motion to Vacate Default Judgment in Foreclosure Action Properly Granted—Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly vacated a default judgment in a foreclosure action:

” A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court'” … . “Under CPLR 5015(a), a court is empowered to vacate a default judgment for several reasons, including excusable neglect; newly-discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by an adverse party; lack of jurisdiction; or upon the reversal, modification or vacatur of a prior order” … .

“In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5015(a), a court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice” … . Indeed, the drafters of CPLR 5015(a) “intended that courts retain and exercise their inherent discretionary power in situations that warranted vacatur but [*2]which the drafters could not easily foresee” … .

“The decision as to the setting aside of a default in answering is generally left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, the exercise of which will generally not be disturbed if there is support in the record therefor” … .

Under the unique circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered on the default of the Cohen defendants “in the interests of substantial justice” … . The documentary evidence submitted in support of the motion raises issues including, among others, whether the plaintiff had “knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue” … . Hudson City Sav Bank v Cohen, 2014 NY Slip Op 06177, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

,

Hearsay Can Not Be Sole Basis for Denial of Summary Judgment Motion

The First Department explained that, while hearsay can be submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion, it can not be the sole basis for denying the motion:

“A party opposing summary judgment may proffer hearsay evidence, but such proof may not be the sole factual basis for denying summary judgment” … . * * * …[D]efendant’s affidavit relies only on hearsay evidence … . The documentary evidence is to the contrary. Andron v Libby, 2014 NY Slip Op 06155, 1st Dept 9-11-14

 

,

Allegations of Mutual Mistake in Counterclaim and Affirmative Defense Not Made With Requisite Particularity

The Second Department determined the allegations of mutual mistake were not made with the requisite particularity and the related counter claim and affirmative defense were properly granted:

“A claim of mutual mistake is stated where the allegations indicate that the parties have reached an oral agreement and, unknown to either, the signed writing does not express that agreement” … . Absent fraud, “the mistake shown must be one made by both parties to the agreement, so that the intentions of neither are expressed in it” … . “A claim predicated on mutual mistake must be pleaded with the requisite particularity necessitated under CPLR 3016(b)” …, which provides that “where a cause of action or defense is based upon misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, wilful default, breach of trust or undue influence, the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail.” Ultimately, the proponent of reformation based on mutual mistake must demonstrate the particulars of the actual agreement intended by the parties, based on the particularized allegations in the complaint… . Friedland Realty Inc v 416 W LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 06052, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, , ,

Elements of Fraud, Money Had and Received, and Unjust Enrichment Explained

In finding the allegations in the complaint insufficient, the Second Department explained the elements of causes of action for fraud, money had and received, and unjust enrichment:

The elements of a cause of action based on fraud are “a representation of material fact, the falsity of that representation, knowledge by the party who made the representation that it was false when made, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and resulting injury” … . The misrepresentation may be in the form of an omission of a material fact … . Although the question of what constitutes reasonable reliance is usually fact-intensive …, where the plaintiff alleges only that the defendant omitted a material fact when making a representation to another party, the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against either the representor or the representee … . * * *

“The essential elements of a cause of action for money had and received are (1) the defendant received money belonging to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant benefitted from receipt of the money, and (3) under principles of equity and good conscience, the defendant should not be permitted to keep the money”… . * * *

In a cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment, “[a] plaintiff must show that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the other party] to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . The plaintiff, in his complaint, did not identify any money that was retained … at his expense and, in any event, “[a]lthough privity is not required for an unjust enrichment claim, a claim will not be supported if the connection between the parties is too attenuated” … . Lebovits v Bassman, 2014 NY Slip Op 06061, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, , , , , ,

Law Explained Re: Suit Against Municipality and Police Officers Alleging Excessive Force

The Second Department explained the law relevant to a suit against police officers, including “John Does,” and a municipality alleging the excessive use of force.  A “1983” action against a municipality cannot be based solely on the actions of an employee or on the basis of respondeat superior, but an intentional tort action can.  “John Does” must be identified and served within the applicable statute of limitations:

“Claims that law enforcement personnel used excessive force in the course of an arrest are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its standard of objective reasonableness” … . “The reasonableness of an officer’s use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight'” … . Because of its intensely factual nature, the question of whether the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances is generally best left for a jury to decide … . If found to be objectively reasonable, the officer’s actions are privileged under the doctrine of qualified immunity … . “To recover damages for battery, a plaintiff must prove that there was bodily contact, that the contact was offensive, i.e., wrongful under all of the circumstances, and intent to make the contact without the plaintiff’s consent” … . * * *

“A municipality is not liable under 42 USC § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents” …, or “solely upon the doctrine of respondeat superior or vicarious liability” … . * * *

Unlike cases commenced under 42 USC § 1983, municipalities may be liable, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the common law torts, such as false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault, and battery, committed by their employees … . * * *

The Town defendants demonstrated that the complaint should be dismissed insofar as asserted against the John Does by showing that the plaintiffs failed to identify the John Does and serve them with process prior to the expiration of the statutes of limitations applicable to this case. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they exercised due diligence in attempting to identify and serve the John Does such that the applicable limitations periods had tolled or were otherwise inapplicable … . Lepore v Town of Greenburgh, 2014 NY Slip Op 06063, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Collateral Estoppel Precluded Plaintiff’s Action—Defendant’s Alleged Default Irrelevant

The Second Department determined defendant’s default did not preclude the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to the collateral estoppel doctrine:

“The litigant seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel must demonstrate that the decisive issue was necessarily decided in the prior action against a party,” and “the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … .

Here, the defendant established that the decisive issues in this case were necessarily decided against the plaintiff in the prior case, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to contest that prior determination. Thus, the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff from maintaining this action. Although the defendant allegedly defaulted in answering the complaint in the instant action, even where such a default has occurred, a plaintiff is only entitled to a default judgment if the complaint states a viable cause of action … . Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has no viable cause of action against the defendant that would warrant entry of a default judgment against it … . Abrahams v Commonwealth Land Tit Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 06042, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

60-Day Rule Did Not Apply—Failure to Submit Proposed Order Within 60 Days Did Not Constitute Abandonment of the Claim

The Second Department determined the 60-day rule with respect to the submission of orders did not apply:

22 NYCRR 202.48, entitled “[s]ubmission of orders, judgments and decrees for signature,” states in pertinent part:

“(a) Proposed orders or judgments, with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted.

“(b) Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown.”

Here, the so-called 60-day rule set forth in 22 NYCRR 202.48 is not applicable because the Supreme Court’s direction that the defendants submit a proposed order with respect to an award of an attorney’s fee did not specify that the proposed order be settled or submitted on notice … . Accordingly, the plaintiff’s contention that the defendants abandoned their claim for an award of an attorney’s fee by failing to comply with the 60-day rule is without merit. 47 Thames Realty LLC v Robinson, 2014 NY Slip Op 06051, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

Class Certification Not Available When Action Seeks Payment of a Nonwaivable Penalty

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the respondent county’s request for class certification should not have been granted because the action sought payment of a penalty.  The county was seeking to act on behalf of 55 other governmental agencies to recover a “hotel tax” which allegedly was not fully paid by the appellants, online sellers of hotel accommodations:

Pursuant to CPLR 901(b), “Unless a statute creating or imposing a penalty, or a minimum measure of recovery specifically authorizes the recovery thereof in a class action, an action to recover a penalty, or minimum measure of recovery created or imposed by statute may not be maintained as a class action.” “However, even where a statute creates or imposes a penalty, the restriction of CPLR 901(b) is inapplicable where the class representative seeks to recover only actual damages and waives the penalty on behalf of the class, and individual class members are allowed to opt out of the class to pursue their punitive damages claims” … . Nonetheless, the “waiver” exception to CPLR 901(b) does not apply where a penalty is mandatory and cannot be waived … .

Here, the plaintiff cannot obtain class certification of this action because, under the plaintiff’s own Hotel Tax law, it is required to recover a “penalty” of 5% of the amount of the tax allegedly due from the appellants within the meaning of CPLR 901(b), the recovery of which in a class action is not specifically authorized in the Hotel Tax law, and the imposition of which cannot be waived, as conceded by the plaintiff’s representative during the deposition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR article 9 for class certification of this action. County of Nassau v Expedia Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06050, 2nd Depy 9-10-14

 

Late Motion to Amend Complaint Should Have Been Granted–No Showing of Prejudice

The Second Department determined a late motion to amend a complaint should have been granted:

…[T]he plaintiff also proposed an amendment to add a cause of action which alleged facts setting forth a cognizable cause of action to recover damages sounding in intentional tort. This cause of action is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, and there is no evidence that this amendment would prejudice or surprise [defendants]… . Although the plaintiff delayed in making the motion for leave to amend, mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment—it must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side … . [Defendants] cannot claim significant prejudice, since the proposed amendment arises out of the same facts as those set forth in the first amended complaint … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for leave to file a second amended complaint, in effect, to add a cause of action to recover damages sounding in intentional tort … . Ciminello v Sullivan, 2014 NY Slip Op 06048, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, ,

Guilty Plea Precluded Litigation on Liability

The Second Department noted that a guilty plea in a criminal matter (in which plaintiff was injured by the defendant) can bar the convicted defendant from litigating liability in the related civil matter under the doctrine of collateral estoppel:

…[L]iability was established in accordance with the legal principle that ” [w]here a criminal conviction is based upon facts identical to those in issue in a related civil action, the plaintiff in the civil action can successfully invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bar the convicted defendant from litigating the issue of . . . liability'” … . Abdelzaher v Sallustio, 2014 NY Slip Op 06040, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

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