You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Email Acknowledging Debt Raised Question of Fact About Whether Period of Limitations Was Restarted by the Email

The Second Department determined an e-mail acknowledging plaintiff’s entitlement to a commission raised a triable issue of fact about whether the statute of limitations was restarted:

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the applicable six-year statute of limitations expired before the plaintiff commenced this action (see CPLR 213…). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether an email message, purportedly sent by the defendant …, acknowledged the plaintiff’s entitlement to a brokerage commission and demonstrated the defendants’ intent to pay it, thus restarting the statute of limitations (see General Obligations Law § 17-101…). ” Whether a purported acknowledgment is sufficient to restart the running of a period of limitations depends on the circumstances of the individual case'” … . Here, a trial is necessary to resolve this issue. Georg Tsunis Real Estate Inc v Benedict, 2014 NY Slip Op 02899, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

,

Court May Not Deny a Dispositive Motion on a Ground Not Raised by the Parties/Assumption of Risk Precluded Suit Based Upon Falling Off an Exercise Ball

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that Supreme Court improperly denied defendant’s [Eastern Athletic’s] motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiff had fallen off an exercise ball during an exercise class.  The Second Department found plaintiff’s lawsuit was precluded by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. In denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Supreme Court ruled the deposition transcripts submitted by the defendant were inadmissible because they were not certified, a ground that had not been raised by the parties.  The Second Department held that a dispositive motion can not be denied on a ground that was not raised by the parties:

Here, the Supreme Court denied the subject motion for summary judgment on a ground that the parties did not litigate. The parties did not have an opportunity to address the issue relating to the certification of the plaintiff’s deposition transcript, relied upon by the Supreme Court in denying that dispositive motion. The lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process. It is significant that, in Misicki v Caradonna (12 NY3d 511, 519), the Court of Appeals cautioned the judiciary that “[w]e are not in the business of blindsiding litigants, who expect us to decide their appeals on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made” (id. at 519).

The Supreme Court erred in denying Eastern Athletic’s motion for summary judgment by deciding that the plaintiff’s deposition transcript was uncertified and, therefore, inadmissible, where that ground of admissibility was not raised by the plaintiff herself. Notably, the plaintiff’s deposition transcript recites that the plaintiff was duly sworn. Moreover, in civil cases, “inadmissible hearsay admitted without objection may be considered and given such probative value as, under the circumstances, it may possess” … .

Had the plaintiff argued in opposition to Eastern Athletic’s motion that her deposition transcript was inadmissible because it was uncertified, Eastern Athletic could have submitted a certification in its reply papers and, if the plaintiff were not prejudiced, the Supreme Court may have considered it … . Eastern Athletic’s failure to submit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the plaintiff’s deposition was an irregularity and, as no substantial right of a party was prejudiced, the court should have ignored the defect (see CPLR 2001). Rosenblatt v St George Health & Racqetball Assoc LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02917, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

, ,

Shortened Statute of Limitations in Policy Enforced

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and held that the shortened statute of limitations in the insurance policy was enforceable:

“The parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations. Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced” … . “Where the party against which an abbreviated Statute of Limitations is sought to be enforced does not demonstrate duress, fraud, or misrepresentation in regard to its agreement to the shortened period, it is assumed that the term was voluntarily agreed to” … .

* * * The plaintiff did not offer evidence that the defendant’s conduct lulled him into inactivity based on a belief that his claim would ultimately be processed, or that he was “induced by fraud, misrepresentation or deception to refrain from commencing a timely action” … .  John v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 02905, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

Criteria for Prohbition and Mandamus Actions Explained

The Second Department, in finding Supreme Court properly denied the petition against a judge, explained the criteria for prohibition and mandamus actions:

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court —in cases where judicial authority is challenged —acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” … . “Prohibition will not lie, however, simply to correct trial errors” … and may not be employed as a means of seeking collateral review of mere trial errors of substantive law or procedure, no matter how egregious the error might be … .

“The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought” … . Mandamus will not lie if the action sought to be compelled involves an exercise of discretion or reasoned judgment … . Matter of Jordan v Levine, 2014 NY Slip Op 02934, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

, , ,

Demand for Jury Trial Properly Struck/Rescission Was Core of Action and Counterclaim

In a detailed opinion by Justice Moskowitz, the First Department methodically went through the issues raised in a trial stemming from the breakdown of a partnership including breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment. In the course of the opinion, the court noted that inclusion of a cause of action and counterclaim for rescission constituted a waiver of a jury trial:

Defendants next assert that the trial court improperly struck their jury demand in Action 1. This argument has no merit. Because defendants’ demand for the equitable remedy of rescission in Action 2 was not “incidental” to that action, and their demand for rescission was not “incidental” to their counterclaims in Action 1, defendants effectively waived their right to a jury trial by joining those demands with claims for legal relief … . In addition, defendants argued that rescission of the partnership’s license agreements … was “the core” of their claims in both actions, and defendants all asserted, as part of their Action 1 counterclaims, that they had “no adequate remedy at law.” New Media Holding Co LLC v Kagalovsky, 2014 NY Slip Op 02888, 1st Dept 4-29-14

 

,

Insurance Law 5214 Does Not Apply Where Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) Is Sued Directly Because the Identity of the Driver Who Caused Plaintiff’s Injury Is Unknown/Default Judgment Against MVAIC Properly Entered

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hinds-radix, determined Supreme Court had properly entered a default judgment against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC).  Plaintiff was a pededstrian who was allegedly struck by a driver who drove plaintiff to the hospital but then left without identifying himself.  Because the driver was unknown, plaintiff sued MVAIC directly pursuant to Insurance Law 5218.  MVAIC argued that Insurance Law 5214 prohibited the entry of a default judgment against it.  The Second Department determined Insurance Law 5214 did not apply, and a default judgment was properly entered against the MVAIC pursuant to CPLR 5015:

This case does not fall within the scope of Insurance Law § 5214 because it does not involve a claim against MVAIC stemming from a judgment entered upon the default or consent of an uninsured defendant. Rather, MVAIC was involved because the identity of the offending motorist was unknown, which permitted the plaintiff, with the approval of the court, to commence an action against MVAIC directly, pursuant to Insurance Law § 5218. Insurance Law § 5218 authorizes a court to permit the commencement of an action against MVAIC directly, if, inter alia, “all reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain the identity of the motor vehicle and of the owner and operator and either the identity of the motor vehicle and the owner and operator cannot be established, or the identity of the operator, who was operating the motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, cannot be established” (Insurance Law § 5218[b][5]…). Where an action is commenced directly against MVAIC, the concerns underlying the enactment of Insurance Law § 5214—protecting MVAIC from the defaults of, or possible collusion by, uninsured defendants—are not implicated. Thus, Insurance Law § 5214 “does not bar the entry of a default judgment against MVAIC in an action in which MVAIC is the named defendant and has defaulted” … .  Archer v Motor Veh Acc Indem Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 02732, 2nd Dept 4-23-14

 

, ,

Dissolved Corporation Amenable to Suit Under New Jersey Law/Substitute Service Upon Insurer of Dissolved Corporation Proper

In an asbestos case, the First Department determined that, under New Jersey law, a dissolved corporation (Jenkins Bros.) was still amenable to suit for pre-dissolution actions, and service of process upon the insurer was appropriate where service on the dissolved corporation was not possible:

In this action for personal injuries allegedly due to asbestos exposure while plaintiffs were employed by Jenkins Bros., a dissolved New Jersey corporation, appellant insurance company, Jenkins’ liability insurer during the relevant time periods, maintains that Jenkins is not amenable to suit based on its bankruptcy and subsequent dissolution. The plain language of the New Jersey dissolution statute, which governs here, provides for a corporation that has been dissolved to “sue and be sued in its corporation name . . . ” (NJSA § 14A:12-9[2]), and the statute places no restriction on how long a dissolved corporation maintains its capacity to be sued for its tortious conduct committed pre-dissolution … . Thus, contrary to appellant’s argument, Jenkins Bros. is amenable to suit pursuant to the laws of the state of its incorporation … .

The motion court properly directed that substituted service be made on appellant. It is undisputed that service was attempted at multiple corporate addresses, to no avail, and that plaintiffs were only able to locate two former corporate representatives. Accordingly, substituted service on the insurer is proper and does not violate due process …. Appellant accepted premiums from Jenkins and agreed to defend and indemnify Jenkins for tortious conduct committed during the coverage periods. This coverage includes liability for conduct that may have led to injuries such as asbestos disease which carries a long latency period between exposure and manifestation of disease … . Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig, 2014 NY Slip Op 02686, 1st Dept 4-17-14

 

,

Participation in Arbitration Precluded Action to Stay Arbitration

The Second Department determined plaintiffs participated in arbitration initially and therefore could not bring a proceeding to stay arbitration:

Pursuant to CPLR article 75, “a party who has not participated in the arbitration and who has not made or been served with an application to compel arbitration, may apply to stay arbitration on the ground that a valid agreement was not made” (CPLR 7503[b]). Consequently, “a party seeking to avoid arbitration on the ground of no agreement to arbitrate can raise such objection only when it has not participated in the arbitration” … .

Here, the record demonstrates that the plaintiffs “participated in the arbitration” (CPLR 7503[b]…). The plaintiffs could not actively engage in the arbitration proceedings and simultaneously retain their right to seek subsequent judicial intervention pursuant to CPLR 7503(b), as such “forum-hedging” is incompatible with the legislative policy underlying CPLR 7503(b) … . Stone v Noble Constr Mgt Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02571, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

Extension for Service of Complaint After Statute of Limitations Had Run Properly Granted in Exercise of Discretion

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion to allow service of a complaint after the 120 period for service had passed and the statute of limitations had run:

When considering whether to grant an extension of time to effect service beyond the 120-day statutory period in the interest of justice, the court may consider the plaintiff’s diligence, or lack thereof, along with other relevant factors, including the expiration of the statute of limitations, the potentially meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of the plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and any prejudice to the defendant … . A determination of whether to grant the extension in the interest of justice is generally within the discretion of the motion court … .

In the instant case, an attempt at proper service was made within the 120-day period, which was later adjudicated to be defective. Furthermore, the statute of limitations had expired by the time the appellant challenged service as defective in its motion to vacate the default judgment, the plaintiff promptly cross-moved for an extension of time to effect proper service, and there was no demonstrable prejudice to the appellant attributable to the delay in effecting proper service. Under the circumstances, granting an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 306-b to serve the appellant was a provident exercise of discretion … .  Siragusa v D’Esposito, 2014 NY Slip Op 02570, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

, , ,

No Private Right of Action for Homeowners Against Lenders Under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)—Home Affordable Modification Program Was Not Enacted Solely for the Benefit of Homeowners(?)

The Second Department, after finding that the doctrine of judicial estoppel did not apply because there was no final determination adopting the plaintiff’s contrary position in the first litigation, determined the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), enacted pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), did not create a private right of action against a lender or loan servicer.  The lender had denied plaintiff’s application for a permanent HAMP loan modification and plaintiff’s brought suit alleging breach of contract (re: a trial period plan or TPP), fraud in the inducement, promissory estoppel and a violation of General Business Law 349:

When, as here, a statute does not provide an express private right of action, the courts will imply a private right of action only upon examination of the following three factors: (1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme” … .

As to the first factor, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 USC §§ 5201-5261; hereinafter the EESA), which authorized the United States Department of the Treasury to promulgate the HAMP, was enacted “to immediately provide authority and facilities that the Secretary of the Treasury can use to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States” (12 USC § 5201[1]) and “to ensure that such authority and such facilities are used in a manner that (A) protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings; (B) preserves homeownership and promotes jobs and economic growth; (C) maximizes overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States; and (D) provides public accountability for the exercise of such authority” (12 USC § 5201[2]). Similarly, Section 201(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (111 P.L. 22, § 201[a][2][A][i], 123 Stat 1632, 1638) simply articulated a Congressional finding that, in order to reduce the number of foreclosures and stabilize real property values, mortgage lenders should be given authorization to modify mortgage loans consistent with applicable guidelines promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury pursuant to EESA. Thus, although financially struggling homeowners may derive a benefit from the HAMP, that program was not promulgated solely for their particular benefit … . As to the second factor, the underlying purpose of the HAMP is to incentivize mortgage loan servicers to reduce monthly mortgage payments and, thus, prevent avoidable home foreclosures … . Accordingly, a private right of action against a lender or loan servicer arising from an alleged breach of a TPP agreement is inconsistent with the purpose of HAMP, as judicial recognition of such a private right of action would deter lenders and loan servicers from participating in the HAMP … . As to the third factor, the EESA expressly provides for civil actions by the Secretary of the Treasury (see 12 USC § 5229[a][1]) and for actions seeking equitable relief against the Secretary of the Treasury (see 12 USC § 5229[a][2], [3]), but makes no reference to private rights of action by borrowers against mortgage lenders or loan servicers. Moreover, given that, as noted above, private rights of action could conceivably deter lenders and loan servicers from participating in the HAMP, which would, in turn, undermine the HAMP’s purpose, allowing for a private right of action would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme of EESA. Since the plaintiffs’ claims here are intertwined with the defendants’ alleged obligations under the HAMP, and as no private right of action exists under the HAMP, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action… . [emphasis added]  Davis v Citibank NA, 2014 NY Slip Op 02557, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

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