You are here: / Civil Procedure

Intervention Not Available to Vacate a Default Judgment—Default Judgment is Not on the Merits and Therefore Has No Res Judicata Effect on Putative Intervenors

The First Department determined a motion to intervene in an action which ended in a default judgment should not have been granted.  Plaintiff sued defendant, which defaulted. Defendant had transferred its assets to the parties seeking to intervene to vacate the default.  Plaintiff had sued the intervenors alleging the transfer of assets from the defendant to the intervenors was fraudulent (the “supplemental proceeding”). The First Department explained:

“[T]he potentially binding nature of the judgment on the proposed intervenor is the most heavily weighted factor in determining whether to permit intervention” … .Here, however, intervenors cannot intervene by arguing that the default judgment has a res judicata effect on the supplemental proceeding and adversely affects their rights in that proceeding. The default judgment has no res judicata effect on intervenors because a default is not a determination on the merits as is necessary to invoke that doctrine … . Likewise, intervenors were not parties to the default action … .  Further, plaintiffs did not obtain the default judgment through fraud or through any other wrongdoing… .  Intervenors’ right to act for defendant ended with the 2007 sale—an event that occurred four years before the clerk entered the default judgment against [defendant].  Amalgamated Bank v Helmsley-Spear, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05600, 1st Dept 8-13-13

 

Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint Should Have Been Denied—Question of Fact Re: Whether Spanish Document Was a Judgment

The First Department determined that a motion brought pursuant to CPLR 3213 to enforce a Spanish court’s award of damages against the defendant should not have been granted.  Experts disagreed about whether the Spanish document was an enforceable judgment.  The First Department explained the criteria for recognizing foreign decrees (CPLR 5302) and for determining a motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213):

A motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213) is based on an “instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment.” The statute allows a plaintiff an expedited procedure for entry of a judgment by filing and service of a summons and a set of motion papers that contain sufficient evidentiary detail for the plaintiff to establish entitlement to summary judgment (see David D. Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3213:8).

CPLR 5302 provides that New York will recognize foreign decrees that are “final, conclusive and enforceable where rendered even though an appeal therefrom is pending.” Here, the parties’ Spanish law experts disagree as to whether the document here, denominated a “ruling” (“auto” in Spanish), is enforceable as a judgment. *  *  *

The conflicting evidence as to whether the ruling is final, conclusive and enforceable in Spain precludes plaintiff from obtaining an accelerated judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213.  Sea Trade Mar Corp v Coutsodontis, 2013 NY Slip Op 05599, 1st Dept 8-13-13

 

Courts Have Discretion to Grant Affirmative Relief in Absence of a Formal Cross-Motion

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Balkin, the Second Department determined trial courts have the discretion to determine applications made in the absence of the formal requirements of a cross-motion.  In this case the defendant answered a motion for a default judgment demonstrating a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense. Included in the answering papers was an application for leave to serve a late answer to compel plaintiff to accept the answer.  Supreme Court granted all the requested relief.  The plaintiff appealed on the ground that the affirmative relief should have been requested through a formal cross-motion.  The Second Department wrote:

Given the language of CPLR 2215, and the contexts in which it is applicable, the most reasonable interpretation of the statute is that a party seeking relief in connection with another party’s motion is, as a general rule, required to do so by way of a cross motion, at least to have a right that the request be determined on the merits. Otherwise, a party who seeks relief by way of a notice of cross motion would be in a position less favorable than that of a party who merely makes the request without a notice of cross motion: the party who makes a formal cross motion would be required to comply with the notice and service requirements and deadlines imposed by the statute, but a party seeking relief merely by requesting it would enjoy greater flexibility.

Nonetheless, courts retain discretion to entertain requests for affirmative relief that do not meet the requirements of CPLR 2215. Litigants, however, must be cognizant of an important distinction between the two situations: a party in compliance with CPLR 2215 is entitled to have its cross motion considered; a party not in compliance with the statute must hope that the court opts, in the exercise of its discretion, to entertain the request. Thus, we are in agreement with our colleagues in the Appellate Division, 3rd Department, who, in Fox Wander W. Neighborhood Assn. v Luther Forest Community Assn. (178 AD2d at 872), held that, even in the absence of an explicit notice of cross motion, the Supreme Court is not “prohibited” from entertaining the nonmoving party’s request for relief.  Fried v Jacob Holding Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05555, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

 

Complaint Can Not Be Deemed Dismissed in Absence of Final Judgment

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined a complaint had not been dismissed because no final judgment dismissing the complaint had been entered after an order vacating a default:

…[T]he Supreme Court issued an order granting the defendant’s motion to vacate his default in appearing and answering the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. However, no judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction was entered. The plaintiff subsequently moved to extend her time to serve the defendant with process in the action. …[T]he court denied the plaintiff’s motion on the ground that its prior order had dismissed the action and, thus, there was no pending action in which to grant an extension of time for service of process … . On her appeal from the August 13, 2012, order, the plaintiff contends that, inasmuch as there was no judgment dismissing the action, the action was pending when she moved to extend the time to serve the defendant with process. We agree. An action is deemed pending until there is a final judgment (see CPLR 5011…)… .  Cooke-Garrett v Hoque, 2013 NY Slip Op 05554, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

 

Supreme Court Does Not Have the Power to Dismiss a Complaint for Delay in Prosecution Absent 90-Notice (CPLR 3216)

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a complaint based on delay in prosecuting the action because the 90-day demand (CPLR 3216) had not been served on the plaintiff.  The First Department wrote:

CPLR 3216 permits a court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute only after the court or the defendant has served the plaintiff with a written demand requiring the plaintiff to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days after receipt of the demand, and also stating that the failure to comply with the demand will serve as the basis for a motion to dismiss the action. Here, the Supreme Court did not possess the power to dismiss this pre-note of issue action on the ground of a general lack of prosecution since the plaintiff had not received a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b) requiring the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue … .  Armouth-Levy v New York City, 2013 NY Slip Op 05551, 2nd Dept, 8-7-13

 

, ,

Criteria for Prohibition Explained

In determining that prohibition did not lie to challenge the appointment of a special district attorney to investigate election law issues, the Second Department explained:

” [A]n article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition will not lie to correct procedural or substantive errors of law'” (Matter of Soares v Herrick, 20 NY3d 139, 145, quoting Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 NY2d 46, 51). Rather, “the extraordinary remedy of prohibition may be obtained only when a clear legal right of a petitioner is threatened by a body or officer acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity without jurisdiction in a matter over which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding of which it has jurisdiction” … . Even where prohibition is an available remedy, it ” is not mandatory, but may issue in the sound discretion of the court'” … . ” In exercising this discretion, various factors are to be considered, such as the gravity of the harm caused by the excess of power, the availability or unavailability of an adequate remedy on appeal or at law or in equity and the remedial effectiveness of prohibition if such an adequate remedy does not exist'” … .

Prohibition is an available remedy to void the improper appointment of a Special District Attorney pursuant to County Law § 701 when the Special District Attorney is performing the quasi-judicial act of representing the State in its efforts to bring individuals accused of crimes to justice … . However, it is not an available remedy when the Special District Attorney is performing the purely investigative function of investigating “suspicious circumstances” with a view toward determining whether a crime has been committed, since, in such circumstances, his or her acts are to be regarded as executive in nature … . Here, the WFP failed to establish that Special District Attorney Adler was performing a quasi-judicial act. Accordingly, prohibition does not lie.  Matter of Working Families Party v Fisher, 2013 NY slip Op 05578, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

 

,

No Article 78 Review Where Petitioner Defaulted

The Second Department noted that there can be no Article 78 review where the petitioner defaulted in the administrative proceeding.  Only the denial of the request to vacate the default can be reviewed:

“[A] petitioner is not aggrieved by an administrative determination made on his [or her] default and may not seek to review such a determination”… . Although the petitioner is not entitled to CPLR article 78 review of the Review Board’s determination to sustain the charges and revoke its registration, which was made upon its default, the Review Board’s determination to deny its application to vacate the default may be reviewed… .  Matter of Tony’s Towing Serv Inc v Swarts, 2013 NY Slip Op 05577, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

 

, ,

DNA Reports Did Not Violate Right to Confrontation; Reports Admissible as Business Records

In finding DNA-profile reports generated by the City of New York’s Medical Examiner did not violate defendant’s right to confrontation, the Second Department wrote:

The reports contained no conclusions, interpretations, comparisons, or subjective analyses, and “consisted of merely machine-generated graphs” and raw data … . Accordingly, the reports were not “testimonial” in nature … .

Further, a foundation for the admission of these reports as business records was established through the testimony of an assistant director employed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York (see CPLR 4518[a]…), who also conducted the actual analysis and interpretation of the data contained in the reports at issue.  People v Fucito, 2013 NY Slip Op 05538, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

Absence of Adequate Reason for Errata Sheet (CPLR 3116(a)) Altering Deposition Testimony Precluded Its Acceptance

Plaintiff was injured when he fell while using a ladder at the plumbing business where he worked. The ladder was owned by plaintiff’s employer and the property was owned by an out-of-possession landlord.  During his deposition, plaintiff said he had no idea why the ladder slid out from under him when he attempted to step on a shelf.  In reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the complaint, the Second Department determined plaintiff’s post-deposition errata sheet could not be considered in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because plaintiff did not provide an adequate reason for the alteration of his deposition testimony:

In his post-deposition errata sheet, the injured plaintiff radically changed much of his earlier testimony, with the vague explanation that he had been “nervous” during his deposition. CPLR 3116(a) provides that a “deposition shall be submitted to the witness for examination and shall be read to or by him or her, and any changes in form or substance which the witness desires to make shall be entered at the end of the deposition with a statement of reasons given by the witness for making them.” Since the injured plaintiff failed to offer an adequate reason for materially altering the substance of his deposition testimony, the altered testimony could not properly be considered in determining the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether a defect in, or the inadequacy of, the ladder caused his fall… . In the absence of the proposed alterations, the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the defectiveness or inadequacy of the ladder so as to warrant the denial of summary judgment. Likewise, in opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing that the trust was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to repair or maintain the ladder or the floor, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Ashford v Tannenhauser, 2013 NY Slip Op 05508, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

Absence of 90-Day Demand to Serve a Note of Issue Precluded Dismissal of Lawsuit Based on Gross Laches (12-Year Delay)

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, the Second Department determined that the doctrine of laches was not available to dismiss a pre-note-of-issue case which had been dormant for 12 years.  In this slip and fall case, the incident occurred in 1992, issue was joined, plaintiffs served a bill of particulars, but plaintiffs failed to appear at a June 1996 status conference. The action was “marked off” the calendar and later marked “disposed.”  In October, 2008, the plaintiffs moved restore the action to the active pre-note-of-issue calendar. Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss based on laches “concluding that it lacked the power to dismiss the … complaint.”  The Second Department affirmed, explaining:

At the outset, we note that we summarized the law applicable to the issue in this case in Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv. (282 AD2d 190), where we explained the interplay among three case management devices: CPLR 3404, 22 NYCRR 202.27, and CPLR 3216. In Lopez, we made clear that none of these devices applies to a pre-note-of-issue case where, as here, there has been no order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, and the defendant has never made a 90-day written demand on the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216… . In this case, the [defendant] attempts to avoid the holding in Lopez by relying on the doctrine of laches as the basis for dismissing the complaint. * * *

…[T]he Court of Appeals concluded in Airmont Homes that dismissal for either gross laches or failure to prosecute was not available in the absence of compliance with CPLR 3216 (see Airmont Homes v Town of Ramapo, 69 NY2d at 902). To allow dismissal under the circumstances of this case based on the doctrine of laches would be tantamount to permitting dismissal for general delay, which the courts lack inherent authority to do, and which is inconsistent with the legislative intent underlying CPLR 3216 [which requires a 90-day demand to serve and file a note of issue]. …

Although an extensive delay in prosecuting an action may, at times, prejudice a defendant’s ability to defend against a suit, a defendant has the statutory means of avoiding such prejudicial delay by serving a 90-day demand … . Laches, which is an equitable doctrine, does not provide an alternate route to dismissal where a defendant has not served the 90-day demand statutorily required to prompt resumption of the litigation … .  Arroyo v Board of Educ of City of NY, 2013 NY Slip Op 05507, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

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