You are here: / Civil Procedure

Rationale for Allowing a Late Motion for Summary Judgment When It Is Identical in Substance to a Timely Motion for Summary Judgment Made by Another Party Explained

The Second Department determined an untimely motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.  The court explained that an untimely motion may be entertained when it is identical in substance to a timely summary judgment motion made by another party in the action.  But that was not the case here.  The timely motion made by the MTA defendants, who were deemed not liable, did not determine the liability of the LIPA defendants.  Therefore, plaintiff’s untimely motion for summary judgment against the LIPA defendants could not “rely” on the motion made by the MTA defendants:

The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability was made more than 90 days after the filing of the note of issue, in violation of the terms of a certification order requiring motions for summary judgment to be filed within 90 days of the filing of a note of issue (see CPLR 3212[a]…). Although an untimely motion or cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court, in the exercise of its discretion, where a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds …, that rule did not apply here. The reason why an untimely motion for summary judgment may be considered if another party made a motion on nearly identical grounds is that, pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), the court has the authority, on a motion for summary judgment, to search the record and award relief to a nonmoving party … . In the instant case, the MTA defendants, the original movants, established as a matter of law that they were not at fault in the happening of the accident. However, the fact that the MTA defendants were not at fault in the happening of the accident did not mean that the LIPA defendants were at fault and, therefore, that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against the LIPA defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against the LIPA defendants should have been denied as untimely.  Williams v Wright, 2014 NY Slip Op 05172, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

,

Matter Determined After a Public Hearing, As Opposed to a Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Hearing, Is Reviewed Under the “Arbitrary and Capricious,” Not “Substantial Evidence,” Standard/Village’s Higher Rate for Water Delivered to Customers Outside Its Borders Was Rational

The Second Department determined that, because there was a public hearing, not a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, on whether the village could charge a higher rate for water supplied outside its borders, Supreme Court should have determined the matter under the arbitrary and capricious standard. In applying that standard, the Second Department found the higher rate had a rational basis:

The Supreme Court erred in characterizing the proceeding as one in the nature of certiorari in which the “substantial evidence” inquiry applied (CPLR 7804[g]). Rate-making determinations may be considered “judicial in the sense that they are reviewable by certiorari or a proceeding in the nature of certiorari” where notice and a hearing are prescribed by statute … . However, “there are different types of hearings with different legal consequences” … . Here, the Village Code required the Board to conduct a hearing in advance of changing the rates it charged for water service, and the Board held a public hearing, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing (see Code of the Village of Williston Park § 225-20[A]). As such, judicial review of the determination was limited to “whether the determination was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or was irrational” … . * * *

The Board’s determination to increase rates was rational, and was not arbitrary and capricious or illegal. A municipal water supplier may charge a higher rate to customers outside its borders, including other municipalities, so long as the difference has a rational basis … . Moreover, a municipal corporation operating a public water utility is entitled to earn a “fair return” on its investment in the utility’s facilities “over and above costs of operation and necessary and proper reserves” in addition to “an amount equivalent to taxes which [the utility], if privately owned, would pay to such municipal corporation” (General Municipal Law § 94; see NY Const art IX, § 1[f]). The actual rate the Board determined to charge also was rational … . In addition, the petitioner has not made any showing that the profits earned by the Incorporated Village of Williston Park under the new rate schedule, as compared to the “value of the property used and useful in such public utility service, over and above costs of operation and necessary and proper reserves,” were in excess of a “fair return” … . Matter of Board of Trustees of Inc Vil of Williston v Board of Trustees of Inc Vil of Williston Park, 2014 NY Slip Op 05179, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

,

Capacity to Sue Does Not Go to the Jurisdiction of the Court—Court Can Not Dismiss a Complaint Sua Sponte On that Ground—Capacity to Sue Must Be Raised as a Defense in the Answer or in a Pre-Answer Motion

The Third Department determined Supreme Court did not have the authority to dismiss a complaint sua sponte based upon the plaintiff’s capacity to sue.  The capacity to sue is not jurisdictional and must be raised as a defense:

“The issue of lack of capacity to sue does not go to the jurisdiction of the court . . . . Rather, lack of capacity to sue is a ground for dismissal which must be raised by [pre-answer] motion [or in the answer] and is otherwise waived” … . Here, plaintiff’s capacity to sue was not raised by pre-answer motion or in defendant’s answer. Consequently, Supreme Court erred in raising the issue sua sponte and dismissing the complaint on that basis (see CPLR 3211 [e]). As such, the order must be reversed and the complaint reinstated. Town of Delhi v Telian, 2014 NY Slip Op 05008, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Service Requirements of Business Corporation Law Trumped CPLR

The Third Department determined the service requirements of the Business Corporation Law trumped the CPLR:

It is well settled that the CPLR “govern[s] the procedure in civil judicial proceedings . . . except where the procedure is regulated by inconsistent statute” (CPLR 101…). As is relevant here, the procedure for the judicial dissolution of corporations is governed by Business Corporation Law article 11. Business Corporation Law § 1106 in particular provides that an order to show cause is to be served upon, among others, “the corporation[s] and upon each person named in the petition” (Business Corporation Law § 1106 [c]), while the petition need only be filed with the county clerk (see Business Corporation Law § 1106 [d]). As this is inconsistent with the requirements of CPLR 406 (b), the specific requirements of Business Corporation Law § 1106 control in this circumstance … . Matter of Gould Erectors & Rigging Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05004, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

Plaintiff Sufficiently Demonstrated the Possibility of Long-Arm Jurisdiction to Warrant Discovery

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed an attorney’s suit for fees on lack-of-personal-jurisdiction grounds. The underlying action was brought by a New York resident (Swanson) injured in Massachusetts.  In explaining the general principles of long-arm jurisdiction, the court noted that some discovery may be necessary to determine the jurisdiction issue:

New York courts “may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . . transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state” (CPLR 302 [a] [1]). Inasmuch as CPLR 302 (a) (1) is a “single act statute . . . proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” … . With respect to the requirement of a substantial relationship, “the existence of some articulable nexus between the business transacted and the cause of action sued upon” is “[e]ssential to the maintenance of a suit against a non-domiciliary under CPLR 302 [(a) (1)]” … . Although plaintiff bears the burden of proof as the party seeking to assert jurisdiction, that burden “does not entail making a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction; rather, plaintiff need only demonstrate that it made a ‘sufficient start’ to warrant further discovery” … . In that regard, we note that the issue of whether long-arm jurisdiction exists often presents complex questions; “[d]iscovery is, therefore, desirable, [*3]indeed may be essential, and should quite probably lead to a more accurate judgment than one made solely on the basis of inconclusive preliminary affidavits” … .

In our view, plaintiff has made a “sufficient start” and demonstrated that additional facts establishing personal jurisdiction “may exist” but are within defendants’ exclusive control … . Specifically, plaintiff raised questions of fact regarding whether defendants interjected themselves into Swanson’s New York workers’ compensation proceeding, ultimately negotiating the workers’ compensation lien on the settlement proceeds from Swanson’s personal injury action. Gottlieb v Merrigan, 2014 NY Slip Op 05011, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Motion to Quash Subpoena for Billing Records Re: the Insurance Company’s Examining Physician Properly Denied

The Fourth Department determined a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum was properly denied, even though the billing documents for the insurance company’s (State Farm’s) examining physician were sought for cross-examination and impeachment purposes:

State Farm moved to quash the subpoena pursuant to CPLR 2304 on the ground that it was plaintiff’s intent to use the subpoenaed materials to impeach the examining physician’s general credibility. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that she intended to use the subpoenaed documents to cross-examine the examining physician at trial with respect to his bias or interest. Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm.

“It is . . . well settled that a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum should be granted only where the materials sought are utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” … . “Moreover, the burden of establishing that the requested documents and records are utterly irrelevant is on the person being subpoenaed” … . It is “proper to allow cross-examination of a physician regarding the fact that the defendant’s insurance company retained him to examine the plaintiff in order to show bias or interest on the part of the witness” … . Questions concerning the bias, motive or interest of a witness are relevant and should be “freely permitted and answered” …  and, thus, plaintiff is entitled to discovery materials that will assist her in preparing such questions. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Dominici v Ford, 2014 NY Slip Op 05081, 4th Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Possible Error of Law Committed by Judge Did Not Warrant a Prohibition Action

The Fourth Department determined the prosecutor’s prohibition action against a judge should have been dismissed.  The judge had ordered a competency hearing to determine if the complainant in a criminal case was competent to testify in light of her intoxication:

Here, petitioner argued — and Supreme Court agreed — that respondent acted in excess of her authority in ordering a competency hearing because a witness’ level of intoxication at the time of the incident in question and its effect on his or her ability to recall the events has no bearing on whether such witness is competent to testify at trial. It is manifest, however, that a trial court has the authority to make a preliminary inquiry as to a witness’ competency to testify at trial (see CPL 60.20 [1]…). As such, any error in respondent’s decision to hold a competency hearing would, at most, amount to a mere substantive error of law that does not justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy. “[P]rohibition will not lie as a means of seeking collateral review of mere trial errors of substantive law or procedure, however egregious the error may be, and however cleverly the error may be characterized by counsel as an excess of jurisdiction or power” … . Matter of Getman, 2014 NY Slip Op 05012, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

Two Asbestos Cases Properly Consolidated

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court properly consolidated two cases alleging injury related to asbestos exposure.  One case involved a worker injured by asbestos dust from drywall sanding at a construction site.  The other involved a navy boiler technician who maintained steam valves containing asbestos.  The court determined that the cases had more commonality than differences:

Consolidation of cases is authorized by CPLR 602(a), which provides:

“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before a court, the court, upon motion, may order a joint trial of any or all the matters in issue, may order the actions consolidated, and may make such other orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”

As the statutory language suggests, joining cases together is designed to “reduce the cost of litigation, make more economical use of the trial court’s time, and speed the disposition of cases” … . Further, “[g]reat deference is to be accorded to the motion court’s discretion” in joining cases together … .

Malcolm v National Gypsum Co. (995 F2d 346 [2d Cir 1993]) is the seminal case concerning consolidation in asbestos cases. There, the Second Circuit endorsed “[a standard set of] criteria . . . as a guideline in determining whether to consolidate asbestos exposure cases[, including]: (1) common worksite; (2) similar occupation; (3) similar time of exposure; (4) type of disease; (5) whether plaintiffs were living or deceased; (6) status of discovery in each case; (7) whether all plaintiffs were represented by the same counsel; and (8) type of cancer alleged” … .

The court entertaining a consolidation motion is further required to take into consideration the number of separate cases (id. at 352). This Court has applied the Malcolm factors to asbestos cases … . Not all of the factors need be present; consolidation is appropriate so long as “individual issues do not predominate over the common questions of law and fact” (id.). However, in asbestos cases, it has been “routine” to join cases together for a single trial … . Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig, 2014 NY Slip Op 05054, 1st Dept 7-3-14

 

Cause of Action Accruing Outside New York Brought by a Nonresident Deemed Untimely—Relevant Law Explained

In finding an action brought by a nonresident based upon a cause of action which accrued outside New York untimely, the Second Department explained the applicable law:

” [W]hen a nonresident sues on a cause of action accruing outside New York, CPLR 202 requires the cause of action to be timely under the limitation periods of both New York and the jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued'” … . When borrowing the foreign jurisdiction’s statute of limitations, its tolling provisions are also borrowed … .

Here, it is undisputed that the applicable limitations period is three years under either New York law or Kazakh law (see CPLR 214[2]; Kazakh Civil Code Article 178). In general, “the applicable Statute of Limitations is triggered once a cause of action accrues” … . “A cause of action accrues, for the purpose of measuring the period of limitations, when all of the facts necessary to the cause of action have occurred so that the party would be entitled to obtain relief in court'” …. An action to recover for a liability created or imposed by statute must be instituted “according to the language of the statute generating the liability” … . Grynberg v Giffen, 2014 NY Slip Op 04901, 2nd Dept 7-2-14

 

,

Appeal Rendered Academic by Failure to Move for a Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal

The Second Department determined the appeal had been rendered academic because the appellant did not move for a preliminary injunction pending appeal and the related development project had been completed:

In order to preserve the status quo pending the determination of this appeal, the petitioner/plaintiff was required to move in this Court pursuant to CPLR 5518 for a preliminary injunction pending appeal, prohibiting the development of the subject real property. Since the petitioner/plaintiff failed to do so, it failed to preserve its rights pending appellate review. In the absence of a preliminary injunction issued pursuant to CPLR 5518, nonparty 405 Hotel, LLC, purchased and redeveloped the subject property, and a hotel is now operated thereon. By virtue of this change in the underlying circumstances, this Court has been prevented “from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy” … .  Matter of Yeshiva Gedolah Academy of Beth Aaron Synogogue v City of Long Beach, 2014 NY Slip Op 04502, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

 

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