You are here: / Civil Procedure

Action Abandoned, Should Not Have Been Restored

In determining an action had been abandoned and should not have been restored, even though there had been a stipulation to restore the action, the Second Department wrote:

Where, as here, an action has been marked “off” the trial calendar, and more than one year has passed without its restoration to the trial calendar, the action shall be deemed abandoned and shall be dismissed (see CPLR 3404). A plaintiff subsequently seeking to restore an action to the trial calendar must demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendant … .

Although the stipulation to restore this action provides some indication that the plaintiff did not intend to abandon it when it was first marked “off,” and there was sporadic activity over the period, in excess of five years, between the automatic dismissal and the motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment that attaches when a matter has been automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404… . Saint Mary Byzantine Catholic Church v Kalin, 2013 NY Slip Op 06355, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

Plaintiff Should Have Been Granted Extension to Serve Summons and Complaint Three Days After 120-Day Period Expired

The Second Department determined plaintiff should have been granted an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint where the statute of limitations ran out between the commencement of the action and the service.  The Second Department further determined that service of one copy of the summons and complaint upon an officer of defendant corporation (MBRI) was valid for both the corporation and the officer:

The defendants contend that MBRI was never served with a copy of the summons and complaint. We disagree. Service of one copy of a summons and complaint upon an officer of a corporation constitutes service upon the corporation itself as well as upon the individual officer, where, as here, there was simultaneous compliance with CPLR 311(a)(1) and CPLR 308(1) … .Here, MBRI was served pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1) when the plaintiff’s process server delivered the summons and complaint to the individual defendant, an officer of MBRI. Accordingly, the method employed to serve MBRI was proper and, thus, that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against MBRI for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been denied.

In this case, where the statute of limitations expired between the time that the action was commenced and the time that the copy of the summons and complaint was served, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon MBRI nunc pro tunc to September 11, 2011, should have been granted in the interest of justice … . The copy of the summons and complaint was served only 3 days after the 120-day time period of CPLR 306-b had expired, the plaintiff promptly sought relief after receiving the answer, and there was no demonstrable prejudice to MBRI attributable to the delay in service … .  Fernandez v Morales Bros Realty Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 06345, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

, ,

Relief Granted By Court Went Too Far Beyond Relief Requested

In a partition action, the First Department determined Supreme Court ordered relief which went too far beyond the relief requested in the motion papers and explained the relevant principles:

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), a court may relieve a party from an order or judgment, but only “on motion of [an] interested person” and “with such notice as the court may direct” (CPLR 5015[a] [emphasis added]…). ” Pursuant to CPLR 5019(a), a trial court has the discretion to correct an order or judgment which contains a mistake, defect, or irregularity not affecting a substantial right of a party, or is inconsistent with the decision upon which it is based. However, a trial court has no revisory or appellate jurisdiction, sua sponte, to vacate its own order or judgment'” … . Likewise, while a court “may grant relief, pursuant to a general prayer contained in the notice of motion or order to show cause, other than that specifically asked for, to such extent as is warranted by the facts plainly appearing [in] the papers on both sides,” it may do so only “if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, and if the proof offered supports it and the court is satisfied that no one has been prejudiced by the formal omission to demand it specifically” … .  Carter v Johnson, 2013 NY Slip Op 06333, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

 

, ,

Writ of Prohibition Barring Retrial Granted—Mistrial Granted Without Consent of Defendant Was Not Justified

The First Department granted a writ of prohibition barring a retrial of the defendant because the judge ordered a mistrial without the consent of the defendant based upon a comment made by defense counsel in summation. The First Department determined the comment was not sufficiently prejudicial to justify the mistrial:

Jeopardy attaches once a jury has been selected and sworn … . When a mistrial is declared without the consent or over the objection of a criminal defendant, the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and in section 6 of article I of the New York State Constitution bars retrial for the same offense or offenses unless there is a manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated … . Here, as the People concede, counsel’s summation comment was not overly prejudicial and provided no basis for a mistrial on “manifest necessity” or “ends of public justice” grounds. Matter of Smith v Williams, 2013 NY Slip Op 06329, 1st Dept 10-1-13

 

,

Failure to Serve Claim by Certified Mail Deprived Court of Claims of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Fourth Department affirmed the Court of Claims’ dismissal of an action for failure to comply with the statutory service-of-claim-by-certified-mail requirement.  The court noted that the court never gained subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, the CPLR 3211 (e) waiver provision, which addressed personal, not subject matter, jurisdiction, did not apply:

…[C]laimants served their claim on the Attorney General by regular mail instead of by certified mail, return receipt requested, as required by Court of Claims Act § 11. Defendant’s answer raised the defense that the court lacked, inter alia, subject matter jurisdiction based on claimants’ improper service, and defendant later moved to dismiss the claim on that ground.  Claimants opposed the motion and cross-moved for an order deeming the service corrected or disregarded pursuant to CPLR 2001. The court granted defendant’s motion and denied claimants’ cross motion, and we now affirm.

Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) provides that a party seeking to file a claim against the State of New York must serve a copy of the claim upon the Attorney General by certified mail, return receipt requested.  It is well settled that “nothing less than strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary” … .  Inasmuch as the claim herein was served by regular mail, the court was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction and thus properly dismissed the claim … . Contrary to claimants’ contention, defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground of improper service, made approximately 20 months after service of its answer, was not precluded by the 60-day waiver provision of CPLR 3211 (e).  The failure to comply with the service requirements in the Court of Claims Act “result[s] not in a failure of personal jurisdiction, . . . but in a failure of subject matter jurisdiction[,] which may not be waived”… . Zoeckler…, v State of New York, 883, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

Failure to Serve Complaint Upon Demand Required Dismissal of the Action

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the action based upon plaintiff’s failure to serve a complaint after a demand should have been granted:

“To avoid dismissal for failure to timely serve a complaint after a demand for the complaint has been made pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a meritorious cause of action” … . Here, plaintiff failed to meet her burden with respect to either prong of that test.  Concerning the first part of the test, plaintiff asserted that she delayed in filing the complaint because she did not receive defendant’s demand for the complaint.  In our view, that excuse is not reasonable… .  Service of the demand for the complaint was complete upon – mailing (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]), and defendant’s submission in support of its motion of a proper affidavit of service of the demand entitled it to the presumption that a proper mailing occurred … .  We agree with defendant that plaintiff’s mere denial of receipt of the demand was insufficient to rebut that presumption … .  Even assuming, arguendo, that nonreceipt of the demand was a reasonable excuse, we conclude that plaintiff failed to establish a meritorious cause of action with a verified complaint or an affidavit of merit, and thus dismissal of the action is required… . Dunlop v Saint Leo the Great, RC Church, 865, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

,

No Appeal Lies from an Order Entered Upon a Default

The Fourth Department noted that no appeal lies from an order entered upon a default. The only remedy is a motion to vacate the default order:

Plaintiff appeals from an order granting the respective motion and cross motions of defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint against them.  It is undisputed that plaintiff failed to oppose the motion and cross motions or to appear on the return date thereof, and thus we deem the order to be entered upon plaintiff’s default… . We therefore dismiss the appeal from the order inasmuch as no appeal lies from an order entered on default … .  The fact that Supreme Court, upon plaintiff’s default, granted the motion and cross motions on the merits … is of no moment inasmuch as no appeal lies from an order entered on default.  “[I]t is not inconsistent to determine both that plaintiff[ is] in default and that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the merits.  Plaintiff[’s] remedy is to move to vacate the default [order]”… .  Britt…v Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority…, 977, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

, ,

Four-Year Rent-Overcharge Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply Where There Is Fraud

The First Department noted that the four-year statute of limitations for rent-overcharge actions does not apply where fraud in involved, because the fraud renders the underlying lease void:

We are not persuaded that plaintiffs’ overcharge claim is barred by the four-year statute of limitations. As we noted in Matter of Grimm v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal Off. of Rent Admin. (68 AD3d 29, 32, affd 15 NY3d 358, 366 [2010] [citations ommitted]), “while the applicable four-year statute of limitations reflects a legislative policy to alleviate the burden on honest landlords to retain rent records indefinitely,’ and thus precludes us from using any rental history prior to the base date, where there is fraud . . . the lease is rendered void[,]” and the legal rent is to be determined by the default formula … . We went on to note that “[s]anctioning the owner’s behavior on a statute of limitations ground can result in a future tenant having to pay more than the legal stabilized rent for a unit, a prospect which militates in favor of voiding agreements such as this in order to prevent abuse and promote enforcement of lawful regulated rents'” … . We thus hold that the four year statute of limitations is not a bar in a rent overcharge claim where there is significant evidence of fraud on the record… . Conason v Megan Holding LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05956, 1st Dept 9-24-13

 

, ,

Petition Seeking Revocation of Building Permit Should Have Named the Director Who Had the Power to Revoke It

In affirming the grant of a building permit by the village board of appeals (BOA), the Second Department noted that only Director of Building, Code Enforcement and Land Use Administration had the power to revoke a building permit and therefore the Director should have been named in the Article 78 proceeding seeking revocation: …[I]n a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 which seeks to compel a body or officer to perform a duty imposed by law, the proceeding must be commenced against the body or officer whose performance is sought (see CPLR 7803). The petitioners sought to compel the BOA to revoke the building permit and any subsequently issued certificate of occupancy. However, only the Director is empowered to do so (see Village Code §§ 126-7, 126-12, 126-15). Thus, the petitioners should have named and joined the Director as a party to this proceeding … .  Matter of Lucas v Board of Appeals of Vil of Mamaroneck, 2013 NY Slip Op 05908, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

,

New Affidavits Properly Allowed in Foreclosure Proceedings; Accuracy of the Execution or Notarizations of the Original Affidavits Could Not Be Confirmed

In affirming Supreme Court’s granting of plaintiff’s motion to substitute new affidavits of merit in a foreclosure proceeding because the accuracy of the execution and/or notarizations of the original affidavits could not be confirmed, the Second Department explained:

CPLR 2001 permits a court, at any stage of an action, to disregard a party’s mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced … . ” Pursuant to CPLR 5019(a), a trial court has the discretion to correct an order or judgment which contains a mistake, defect, or irregularity not affecting a substantial right of a party'” … . The provisions in CPLR 2001 and 5019(a) may only be employed to correct errors where the corrections do not affect a substantial right of the parties … .

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion. No substantial right of Eaddy [the defendant] will be affected by the court’s substitution of the new affidavits of merit and of the amount due … . The new proposed affidavits of merit and of the amount due list the same amounts due and owing as those stated in the original affidavits submitted with the application for the order of reference and the application for the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Further, Eaddy has remained in possession of the subject property throughout the pendency of the instant action. US Bank NA v Eaddy, 2013 NY Slip Op 05896, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

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