, ,

Supreme Court Properly Considered Documentary Evidence Re: a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)—Limited Role of Such Evidence in this Context Clarified/Criteria for Specific Performance of a Real Estate Contract Explained

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Whalen, clarified how a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211(a)(7)) should be handled when documentary evidence is submitted by the defendant.  The case involved a real estate transaction which initially fell through when plaintiff was unable to finance it.  Years later, when plaintiff finally was able to obtain financing, it sought specific performance of the original contract. Documents tracing the history of the communications between plaintiff and defendant were submitted with the motion to dismiss.  Supreme Court considered the documents and dismissed the complaint.  The Fourth Department affirmed. In addition to an extensive discussion of the use of documentary evidence submitted in support of (and in opposition to) a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the Fourth Department explained the criteria for specific performance of a real estate contract and the role of a “time is of the essence” demand (which was not made here):

CPLR 3211 (a) (7) authorizes the summary dismissal of a complaint for failure to “state” a cause of action. Historically, “[a] motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action . . . was[] limited to the face of the complaint” (Rovello, 40 NY2d at 638 [Wachtler, J., dissenting]), but the Legislature enlarged the scope of facial sufficiency motions by enacting subdivision (c) of CPLR 3211, which permits “trial court[s to] use affidavits in its consideration of a pleading motion to dismiss” (id. at 635 …). The Court in Rovello held that the plain text of CPLR 3211 (c) “leaves this question,” i.e., the admissibility of affidavits on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), “free from doubt” (id. at 635). The 1st Department recently explained that Rovello’s reference to “affidavits” is merely shorthand for “evidentiary submissions” … .

As noted in Rovello, however, CPLR 3211 does not specify “what effect shall be given the contents of affidavits submitted on a motion to dismiss when the motion has not been converted to a motion for summary judgment” (id.). The Court noted that “[m]odern pleading rules are designed to focus attention on whether the pleader has a cause of action rather than on whether he has properly stated one’ ” and held that evidentiary submissions may only be considered for a “limited purpose” in assessing the facial sufficiency of a civil complaint (id. at 636). This “limited purpose,” Rovello explained, is two-fold. On the one hand, “affidavits submitted by the defendant [as movant] will seldom if ever warrant the relief” sought under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) “unless too the affidavits establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action” (id. [emphasis added]). On the other hand, the nonmoving party may “freely” submit evidentiary materials “to preserve inartfully pleaded, but potentially meritorious, claims” (id. at 635).

The “limited purpose” to be accorded evidentiary submissions on a motion to dismiss has been consistently reiterated by the Court of Appeals since Rovello … . Indeed, in Guggenheimer v Ginzburg (43 NY2d 268, 275), the Ct. of Appeals noted that “dismissal should . . . eventuate” only when the defendant’s evidentiary affidavits “show[] that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and . . . that no significant dispute exists regarding it” … . * * *

We therefore conclude that the court properly considered defendant’s evidentiary submissions in evaluating the motion to dismiss at bar. Liberty Affordable Hous Inc v Maple Ct Apts, 2015 NY Slip Op 0003, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, ,

Complaint by Members of a Congregation against the Congregation’s Board of Trustees Stemming from the Termination of a Rabbi Reinstated—Criteria for Motions to Dismiss, Statutory Interpretation Principles, Criteria for Stating a Defamation Cause of Action, and the Qualified Immunity Afforded Board Members by the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law Discussed in Some Depth

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, reversed Supreme Court's dismissal of a complaint against the congregation's board of trustees by members of the congregation alleging causes of action stemming from the board's termination of a Rabbi. The Second Department held Supreme Court had not properly interpreted the Religious Corporations Law and the congregation's by-laws (Supreme Court had erroneously concluded the board had the power to act as it did under the statute and by-laws). The court further held the complaint sufficiently alleged malice in support of the defamation cause of action and sufficiently alleged the qualified immunity afforded board members by the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law may not apply.  The court discussed the criteria for a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, statutory interpretation principles, the elements of defamation, and the qualified immunity afforded board members by the Not-for-Profit-Corporation Law in some depth. Only a portion of the statutory-interpretation discussion is quoted here.  Supreme Court had interpreted the statutory phrase “The trustees … shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister…” to refer only to the trustees' actions concerning “the salary of the minister.”  The Second Department interpreted the phrase to mean the trustees have no power to “settle,” “remove,” or “fix the salary of” the minister:

We conclude that a more natural reading of the provision “[t]he trustees . . . shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister” (Religious Corporations Law § 200) establishes that “settle or remove” do not modify “the salary of the minister.” Rather, a more natural reading of this passage would be that the terms “settle,” “remove,” and “fix the salary of” all modify “the minister.” Under this reading, the trustees have no power to settle, or hire, the minister; they have no power to remove, or terminate the engagement of, the minister; and, finally, they have no power to fix the salary of the minister.

Under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the relevant language, the words “settle” and “fix” would have the same meaning, thus rendering one of these terms superfluous. ” Words are not to be rejected as superfluous where it is practicable to give each a distinct and separate meaning'” (…see McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 231). Moreover, the Supreme Court's interpretation would lead to the somewhat unnatural provision for the “removal” of a clergyperson's salary. Furthermore, the use of the word “or” to separate each of the three terms suggests an intent to distinguish three distinct concepts.

Additionally, our interpretation of the statute, prohibiting the trustees from settling or removing the minister, or fixing his or her salary, is supported by the consistent, and quite similar, language set forth in Religious Corporations Law § 5. We note in this regard that ” [a] statute or legislative act is to be construed as a whole, and all parts of an act are to be read and construed together to determine the legislative intent'” … . Kamchi v Weissman, 2014 NY Slip Op 09109, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


,

Prior Ties to New York Sufficient to Justify Jurisdiction of New York Courts over Custody Proceedings Brought by the Child’s Grandmother Two Months After the Child and Mother Moved to Florida

The Second Department determined New York did not have jurisdiction over the custody matter by virtue of Domestic Relations Law 76 (1)(a) but did have jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 76 (1)(b) ( Unified Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA]).  Respondent mother had moved from New York to Florida with the child two months before the custody proceedings were commenced by petitioner, the child's grandmother (who lives in New York).  The mother argued the New York courts did not have jurisdiction:

UCCJEA provides the jurisdictional grounds for a court of this state to hear an initial custody dispute, including when “this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [a]…).

It is not disputed that New York was the home state of the child within six months prior to the time that petitioner commenced this proceeding. Because the child moved to Florida approximately two months prior to the commencement of the proceeding, the question presented is whether Family Court properly concluded that petitioner was a “person acting as a parent” for the purposes of the UCCJEA. A “person acting as a parent” is one who “(a) has physical custody of the child or has had physical custody for a period of six consecutive months . . . within one year immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding; and (b) has been awarded legal custody by a court or claims a right to legal custody under the law of this state” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a [13]). …[B]ecause petitioner neither claims a right to legal custody nor has been awarded legal custody of the child, Family Court erred when it determined that petitioner was a “person acting as a parent” pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (a).

…Having found that petitioner was not a “person acting as a parent,” it follows that, at the time this proceeding was commenced, the child, who had been living in Florida for fewer than six months, did not have a home state for purposes of the UCCJEA … . In such a case, a New York court may exercise jurisdiction if “(i) the child [and the parent] . . . have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and (ii) substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [b]).

* * * … [W]e find that the record supports a finding that, at the time that the petition was filed, the child and respondent had a significant connection with New York and that “substantial evidence regarding her present and future welfare” existed in New York … . Accordingly, we find that Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Matter of Breselor v Arciniega, 2014 NY Slip Op 09084, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


,

Neither CPLR 5015 Nor Family Court Act 451 Was a Bar to Mother’s Petition to Modify a Child-Support Money Judgment by Temporarily Suspending Interest

In reversing Family Court's denial of mother's petition to modify a child-support money judgment (temporary suspension of interest), the Second Department explained that neither CPLR 5015, nor Family Court Act 451 was a bar to the petition:

The mother's failure to allege any of the grounds listed in CPLR 5015 did not preclude her from seeking modification of the money judgment since the grounds set forth in the statute are not exhaustive … . Additionally, Family Court Act § 451 provides the Family Court with continuing jurisdiction over any support proceeding brought under Family Court Act article 4 “until its judgment is completely satisfied,” and authorizes it to “modify, set aside or vacate any order issued in the course of the proceeding” without limitation as to grounds (Family Ct Act § 451[1]). * * *

Contrary to the Family Court's conclusion, the prohibition contained in Family Court Act § 451 on modifying or vacating an order or judgment so as to “reduce or annul child support arrears accrued prior to the [filing of the petition for modification]” did not preclude the modification the mother sought through her motion, inasmuch as she proposed only to suspend interest on the money judgment prospectively from the date her modification petition was filed (Family Ct Act § 451[1]). Moreover, DSS, the party in whose favor the money judgment was entered, expressly consented to the suspension of interest on the money judgment as requested by the mother.  Matter of Nassau County Dept of Social Servs v Schapp, 2014 NY Slip Op 09139, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


Recommencement of A Dismissed Action Pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) Not Allowed Where Prior Action Was Dismissed for Neglect to Prosecute

The Second Department determined that dismissal of plaintiff's action for neglect to prosecute precluded the commencement of another identical action pursuant to CPLR 205 (a):

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that a prior action commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant, which asserted the same causes of action, was dismissed for the plaintiff's failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant and neglect to prosecute, and that the order of dismissal entered in that action adequately set forth the conduct of the plaintiff that constituted the neglect and demonstrated a general pattern of delay in proceeding (see CPLR 205[a]). Accordingly, the court properly concluded that the plaintiff could not avail herself of CPLR 205(a), which provides that, under certain circumstances, an action that has been dismissed, albeit not on the merits, may be recommenced within six months after its dismissal… . Webb v Greater NY Auto Dealers Assn Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 09121, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


,

Default Judgment of Foreclosure Cannot Be Collaterally Attacked in a Plenary Proceeding/Former Property Owner Cannot Contest Sale of Property After Default Judgment of Foreclosure

The Second Department noted that petitioner, Amona, could not bring a plenary action (an Article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding) after a tax foreclosure proceeding in which she defaulted and which resulted in the sale of her property.  Amona's only recourse was a motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure.  However, Amona's default in the foreclosure action precluded any action to contest the sale of the property:

The Supreme Court properly granted the Conservancy's motion, in effect, to dismiss the petition/complaint. The relief sought herein by Amona should have been pursued by way of a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 317 or CPLR 5015(a) in the in rem tax lien foreclosure proceeding … . “A plenary action or proceeding for such relief does not lie and must be dismissed” … . Since Amona has improperly sought to collaterally attack the judgment by way of this proceeding/action, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, dismissed the proceeding/action.

Moreover, Amona's default in the foreclosure action forever barred and foreclosed her of “all right, title, and interest and equity of redemption in and to the parcel” in which she had had an interest (RPTL 1131). Thus, Amona has no standing to contest the County's sale of the property … (see RPTL 1136[3]…).  Matter of Amona v County of Orange, 2014 NY Slip Op 09125, 2nd Dept 12-31-14

 

,

In an Action Stemming from an Automobile Accident, Having Granted a Default Judgment, Supreme Court Should Not Have Directed Plaintiff to Accept a Late Answer and Allowed Discovery Re: Damages–A Defaulting Defendant Is Not Entitled to Discovery

The Second Department determined Supreme Court, having granted plaintiff's motion for a default judgment on liability in an automobile-accident case, should have also granted plaintiff's motion for an inquest on damages.  Supreme Court should not have ordered plaintiff to accept a late answer and allowed discovery on damages:

Having granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability, the Supreme Court should have directed an inquest on damages. Since serious injury “is decidedly an issue of damages, not liability” …, the plaintiff will be required to present prima facie proof at the inquest that she sustained a serious injury. However, while the defendants are “entitled to present testimony and evidence and cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses at the inquest on damages” …, they may not conduct discovery with respect to the issue of damages, since defaulting defendants forfeit the right to discovery … . Rudra v Friedman, 2014 NY Slip Op 09117, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


, , ,

Procedure Under Civil Rights Law for Disclosure of Police Personnel Records Described

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to the audiotapes of interviews of police officers which were attached to a report about a high-speed chase that resulted in the death of plaintiff's decedent.  Plaintiff's decedent was killed when the vehicle the police were chasing crashed into plaintiff's decedent's house:

CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution . . . of an action.” However, Civil Rights Law § 50-a, which codifies the standards for the disclosure of police personnel records …, provides that a police officer's “personnel records, used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion . . . shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review . . . except as may be mandated by lawful court order” (Civil Rights Law § 50-a[1]). Prior to issuing such an order, the court is obligated to conduct an in camera review of the requested file, “and make a determination as to whether the records are relevant and material in the action before” it, and, upon such a finding “the court shall make those parts of the record found to be relevant and material available to the persons so requesting” (Civil Rights Law § 50-a[3]).

Here, the order dated March 22, 2013, indicated that the Supreme Court had reviewed “the reports sought . . . and all documentation annexed thereto” before concluding that there was “relevant and material” information contained therein (emphasis added). Accordingly, the plaintiff met his burden for compelling disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-a, and the court properly directed the County to disclose the IAB report. However, we perceive no reason why the plaintiff should have been denied access to the audiotapes of the interviews which were identified in the attachments to the IAB report … . The plaintiff should be permitted to hear the actual interviews of the officers regarding the accident, and not only read the IAB report's summaries thereof, since the interviews were the main source material for the IAB report and were incorporated by reference therein … .

“The party opposing disclosure carries the burden of demonstrating that the requested information falls squarely within the exemption'” … . The County has not offered any explanation as to why the audiotapes should not be discoverable, especially since it has already disclosed all of the other source material identified in the attachments to the IAB report. Calhoun v County of Suffolk, 2014 NY Slip Op 09095, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


,

Once the Jury Found Defendant’s Negligence Was Not a Substantial Factor in Causing Plaintiff’s Injuries, the Jury Should Not Have Continued to Deliberate, Make Findings of Comparative Negligence and Apportion Damages—Jury’s Continued Deliberations Were Superfluous—New Trial Not Necessary

The First Department determined a new trial was not necessary where the jury went on to assess comparative fault and damages after finding defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries.  The jury should have stopped deliberating at that point:

The verdict sheet in this personal injury action instructed the jurors to determine (1) whether defendant was negligent, and (2) if so, whether defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injuries. The jurors found that defendant was negligent, but that his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury. The verdict sheet instructed that if the jurors answered the second question in the negative, they should cease deliberations and report their verdict. The jurors, however, continued deliberating and determined that plaintiff was also negligent; that plaintiff's negligence was a substantial factor in causing his own injury; that plaintiff was 95% at fault, and defendant was 5% at fault; and that plaintiff was entitled to $200,000 in damages.

This case is controlled by Pavlou v City of New York (21 AD3d 74 [1st Dept 2005], affd 8 NY3d 961 [2007]), a Labor Law case in which the plaintiff was injured due to a damaged crane hoist. In Pavlou, the jurors determined that the City (the owner of the construction site) was negligent under the Industrial Code, but that its negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury. The jury also found that the crane manufacturer was not negligent (id. at 75). The verdict sheet instructed that upon making these findings, the jurors were to stop deliberations. The Pavlou jury, however, went on to find the third-party defendant-employer negligent for operating a damaged crane; the jury then apportioned the employer's degree of fault and fixed the amount of damages (id. at 81). This Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial as against the City, stating, “[T]he jury should not have apportioned [the employer's] liability . . . or fixed the amount of damages, once it determined that the violation of the Industrial Code was not a proximate cause and that the crane manufacturer was not negligent. The fact that the jury attempted such an award was a superfluous act that does not require a new trial” (id. at 76). The Court of Appeals affirmed (8 NY3d 961 [2007]).

The same reasoning as in Pavlou applies here. Once the jurors determined that defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor or proximate cause (see PJI 2:70, Proximate Cause — In General; see also PJI 2:36) of plaintiff's injuries, they should not have attempted to assess plaintiff's own negligence and to fix damages. That they did so was a superfluous act that [*2]does not require a new trial. Alcantara v Knight, 2014 NY Slip OP 09030, 1st Dept 12-30-14


, , , , ,

Survey Without Surveyor’s Affidavit Insufficient to Support Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion/Inadmissible Evidence (Survey) May Be Considered to Defeat Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion/Nuisance Cause of Action Dismissed Because Duplicative of Negligence Cause of Action

In an action stemming from the collapse of a retaining wall between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s properties, the First Department noted that a survey map without an affidavit from the surveyor is insufficient to support plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, but was sufficient to support the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  The court also noted that where negligence and nuisance causes of action are duplicative, the nuisance action should be dismissed:

… [A] survey alone, without an accompanying affidavit from the surveyor, does not constitute competent evidence of the location of property lines and fences or retaining walls … . Plaintiff has therefore failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate entitlement to a declaratory judgment on its claim brought pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-305.1.1.

Defendant met its prima facie burden as cross movant by submission of the affidavit of a land surveyor who inspected and measured the property subsequent to the collapse of the retaining wall in June 2013, and concluded that no portion of the wall had been upon defendant’s property. That plaintiff’s two surveys indicate that the wall was “on [the] line” of both properties, is sufficient, however, to raise a question as to the location of the wall relative to the two properties; we have long held that otherwise inadmissible evidence may be considered to defeat an application for summary judgment … .

… [W]e find that the claim of negligence is expressed throughout plaintiff’s papers, and there is a question of fact as to whether defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff, if the retaining wall is found to rest on both parties’ premises. The claim of nuisance, based on allegations that defendant’s ongoing refusal to participate in the repairs and maintenance of the retaining wall substantially interferes with plaintiff’s ability to use and enjoy its property, arises solely from plaintiff’s claim of negligence. Where nuisance and negligence elements are “so intertwined as to be practically inseparable,” a plaintiff may recover only once for the harm suffered … . Upon a search of the record, we conclude that the third cause of action, nuisance, should be dismissed as duplicative of the negligence cause of action, although this argument was not previously made or considered … . 70 Pinehurst Avenue LLC v RPN Mgt Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 09029, 1st Dept 12-30-14