You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

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

 

,

Criteria for Seizure of Equipment Explained

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the plaintiff, in a replevin action, was not required to demonstrate irreparable harm in an action for seizure pursuant to CPLR 7102.  The defendant had defaulted on an equipment lease.  The court wrote:

Pursuant to CPLR 7102(c) and (d), on a motion for an order of seizure, a plaintiff must demonstrate a likelihood of success on its cause of action for replevin and the absence of a valid defense to its claim … . Here, the plaintiff made such a showing … . Contrary to the court’s determination, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable injury in order to obtain an order of seizure pursuant to CPLR 7102.  TCF Equip Fin Inc v Interdimensional Interiors, Inc, 2013 NY Slip 05893, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

, , ,

Opening Statement Provided Grounds for Dismissal of False Arrest/Malicious Prosecution Action

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of a judgment as a matter of law to the defendant in a false arrest/malicious prosecution case based upon plaintiff’s counsel’s opening statement. In the opening, counsel stated the defendant had been arrested after the eyewitness victim made an in-person identification of the plaintiff to a police officer.  Because the eyewitness identification provided probable cause for the arrest, the false arrest and malicious prosecution causes of action were not viable:

An application for judgment as a matter of law may be made at the close of an opposing party’s case, or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401). The grant of such an application prior to the close of the opposing party’s case is generally disfavored … . However, judgment as a matter of law may be warranted prior to the presentation of any evidence if the plaintiff has, “by some admission or statement of fact, so completely compromised his or her case that the court was justified in awarding judgment as a matter of law to one or more defendants”… . * * *

Here, the plaintiff, through his counsel, admitted that the eyewitness victim of the alleged crimes made an in-person identification of the plaintiff to a police officer, which led to his immediate arrest by that officer. This admission by the plaintiff, through his counsel, “so completely compromised” his position that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him, that the Supreme Court was justified in awarding judgment as a matter of law to the City…. Okunubi v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05886, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

, ,

Summary Judgment Can Not Be Granted Based on Affidavit By Someone with No Personal Knowledge of the Facts, Even If Factual Information Not Disputed

A mortgage foreclosure action was discontinued at the plaintiff’s request because the limited signing officer who signed the affidavit in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment did not have personal knowledge of the facts.  The defendant then cross-moved for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s papers.  In explaining that Supreme Court should not have granted summary judgment to the defendant dismissing the action, the Second Department wrote:

…[W]here a motion for summary judgment is based solely upon an affidavit of someone with no personal knowledge of the facts, that circumstance generally presents only a ground for the denial of summary judgment…, not a ground to dismiss the action. [Defendant] failed to establish grounds to dismiss the action against her with prejudice, and there is no basis in this record supporting that request for relief. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly granted that branch of [defendant’s] cross motion which was, in effect, to dismiss the action against her with prejudice… . GMAC Mtge LLC v Bisceglie, 2013 NY Slip Op 05878, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

, ,

Action By Israeli Citizens Against Bank Which Allegedly Funded Groups that Committed Bombings and Rocket Attacks Allowed to Go Forward in New York Applying Israeli Negligence Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Feinman, the First Department determined that Israeli law should be applied in a civil action by 50 Israeli citizens who were injured or who represent persons killed in bombings and rocket attacks carried out in Israel by Palestine Islamic Jihad and Hamas.  The opinion includes very detailed explanations of American and Israeli tort law (including the different roles of foreseeability in each), the factors that determine choice of law, and forum non conveniens. The action is against the Bank of China (BOC) and alleges the bank was negligent in supplying funds to the groups which carried out the bombings and attacks.  BOC argued that no duty ran from the bank directly to those injured by the intentional torts of others.  But, under Israeli law, a duty arises when an act is foreseeable and when an act violates a statute.  The court explained:

…[T]he Israeli law of negligence “differs slightly” from New York law in that duty is divided into fact and notional duty and depends on foreseeability …. …[T]he analysis of whether a duty is owed involves an inquiry into whether a reasonable person could have foreseen the occurrence of the damage under the particular circumstances alleged; whether as a matter of policy, a reasonable person ought to have foreseen the occurrence of the particular damage; and whether the occurrence causing the damage was foreseeable … . This differs from New York law, where the foreseeability of harm does not define duty and, absent a duty running directly to the injured person, there is no liability in damages, however careless the conduct or foreseeable the harm … .

In addition, the claim of breach of statutory duty …has no equivalent in New York law. … Israel’s tort of breach of a statutory duty “acts as a civil private right of action for the violation of any enactment” issued by the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. The plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant was under a duty imposed by an enactment, the enactment was created for the benefit of the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, and the breach caused an injury to the plaintiff of the type that the enactment was intended to prevent …. …[T]he enactments at issue are section 4 of the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, sections 145 and 148 of the Penal Law, and section 85 of the Defense Regulations (Emergency Period), all of which prohibit aiding and abetting terrorism, specifically by the giving of money to any terrorist organization, the payment of any contribution to any unlawful association including terrorist groups, and the performance of any service for or holding of funds of any unlawful organization … . Elmaliach v Bank of China Ltd, 2013 NY Slip Op 05858, 1st Dept 9-17-13.

 

, ,

In Personal Injury Case, Court Should Not Have Granted Mistrial When Objection Sustained, Lawyer Admonished and Curative Instruction Given

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of a mistrial in a slip and fall case.  Plaintiff was injured playing basketball. Plaintiff objected to remarks made by defense counsel in summation which erroneously implied that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applied.  The trial judge sustained the objection, admonished the lawyer, and gave a curative instruction. After the verdict for the defendant, Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial:

The Supreme Court erred in, in effect, granting the plaintiffs’ application for a mistrial since the court had previously properly sustained objections to the subject summation comments, openly admonished counsel, and provided curative instructions, thereby correcting any possible prejudice resulting from the subject summation comments … . Richardson v City of New York, 2013 NY slip Op 05810, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

, ,

Refusal to Comply with Discovery Demand Supported Sanction of Dismissal of the Complaint

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had properly dismissed the complaint in a medical malpractice action because the plaintiffs refused to identify the mohel who had performed the circumcision of infant plaintiff.  In finding dismissal of the entire complaint an appropriate sanction, the court wrote:

“The Supreme Court has broad discretion in making determinations concerning matters of disclosure including the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed under CPLR 3126” … . “The striking of a pleading may be appropriate where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful or contumacious”… . Further, the court can infer that a party is acting willfully and contumaciously through his or her repeated failure to respond to demands or to comply with discovery orders … .  Silberstein v Maimonides Med Ctr, 2013 NY Slip Op 05813, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

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