You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Unpleaded Cause of Action Can Be Raised in Opposition to Summary Judgment—Must Be Supported by Proof in Admissible Form

The Second Department noted that, in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, an unpleaded cause of action (which must be supported by proof in admissible form) may be raised:

The plaintiff, in opposition, …raised a new theory of liability …. A plaintiff may successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment by relying on an unpleaded cause of action which is supported by the plaintiff’s proof …. However, in the instant case, the plaintiff’s submission in support of the unpleaded cause of action was an affirmation of an attorney with no personal knowledge of the facts. That affirmation was not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the allegations in the plaintiff’s pleadings …. Since the plaintiff submitted no evidence in admissible form in support of the unpleaded cause of action, she failed to raise a triable issue of fact. McCovey v Williams, 2013 NY Slip Op 02380, 2012-01315, Index No 38525/06, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13

 

,

Requirements for Motion to Dismiss on Documentary Evidence

In this case, the Second Department addressed the proof requirements for a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion (motion to dismiss on documentary evidence), the potential validity of an unsigned agreement in the context of such a motion, and the proper remedy when a referee exceeds his or her authority:

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Here, although [defendant] offered documentary proof that the loan reinstatement agreement was not signed…, this proof does not conclusively dispose of the plaintiff’s specific performance or breach of contract claims since an unsigned agreement may constitute an enforceable contract where there is objective evidence establishing that the parties intended to be bound …. We further note that since [defendant] sought dismissal of the specific performance and breach of contract causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) on the ground that it had a defense founded on documentary evidence, the motion should have been decided solely on the documentary evidence proffered in support of the motion. …. Furman v Wells Fargo Home Mtge Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02374, 2011-10281, 2011-10284, Index No 25616/09, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13

 

, ,

Remedy When Referee Exceeds Authority

The Second Department explained the effect of a referee’s exceeding his or her authority:

“A referee derives his or her authority from an order of reference by the court” …. The scope of a referee’s duties are defined by the order of reference (see CPLR 4311;…). A referee “who attempts to determine matters not referred to him [or her] by the order of reference acts beyond and in excess of his [or her] jurisdiction” …. Here, the Supreme Court directed the referee to hear and report on the issues of whether the plaintiff complied with the terms of the loan reinstatement agreement …. Instead of making findings of fact and reporting them to the Supreme Court, the referee exceeded his authority by making a determination that the loan should be reinstated … . Since the referee had no authority to do so, the Supreme Court should have rejected his report in its entirety … . Furman v Wells Fargo Home Mtge Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02374, 2011-10281, 2011-10284, Index No 25616/09, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13

 

, ,

Fraud Cause of Action in Legal Malpractice Case Sufficiently Pled

In a legal malpractice action, the Second Department determined the cause of action for fraud should not have been dismissed:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the causes of action alleging fraud. “To properly plead a cause of action to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant made a false representation of fact, (2) the defendant had knowledge of the falsity, (3) the misrepresentation was made in order to induce the plaintiff’s reliance, (4) there was justifiable reliance on the part of the plaintiff, and (5) the plaintiff was injured by the reliance” …. Here, the complaint alleged that the defendants committed fraud by misrepresenting that they “made a motion for a default judgment” when they “never made, filed, or drafted” such a motion, that the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation, and that the defendants billed the plaintiff for drafting the motion. Those allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action to recover damages for fraud …. Vermont Mut Ins Co v McCabe & Mack, LLP, 2013 NY Slip Op 02392, 2012-00566, Index No 4510/10, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13

 

, ,

Procedure for Testing Adequacy of Causes of Action in Article 78 Petition; Criteria for Bad Faith Abolishment of Position

The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s determination that the petitioner had stated a cause of action in his Article 78 proceeding for bad faith abolishment of his tenured Assistant Superintendent position.  The Third Department noted that the proper criteria for analysis in this Article 78 proceeding is the same as in a pre-answer motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211:

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, objections in point of law may be raised either through  a pre-answer motion  to dismiss or – as here – in the verified answer  (see CPLR  7804  [f]). Such objections are appropriately afforded review similar in nature to that applied to defenses raised in a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a).  *  *  *

A school district may abolish a position, even when this results in the discharge of a tenured employee, so long as it “has made a good faith determination based on economic considerations” … . *  *  * We agree with Supreme Court that [petitioner’s] specific and nonconclusory assertions, when deemed to be true for this purpose, were sufficient to allege that the abolition of his position “was motivated by reasons other than a desire to promote institutional efficiency and economy” and thus state a cause of action … .  Matter of Lally v Johnson City School District, 515488, 3rd Dept 4-4-13

 

Second Summary Judgment Motion to Address Deficiencies in First Motion Should Not Have Been Entertained

In holding that a second summary judgment motion which addressed deficiencies in the first summary judgment motion should not have been entertained, the Third Department wrote:

…[W]e agree with plaintiff that  the Town’s summary  judgment  motion  should not have  been  considered. “‘[M]ultiple summary judgment motions in the same action should be discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly discovered evidence or other  sufficient cause'”  …. Here, the Town’s second motion for summary judgment was made solely upon the added affidavit of its Highway Superintendent, which was submitted to address the deficiencies in the Town’s proof as outlined by our prior decision. However, such affidavit was not new evidence, as no reason was given why it could not have been submitted with the initial motion … . For the same reason, this evidence could not have been a valid basis to grant renewal of the first summary judgment motion … . We discern no valid purpose for allowing a successive summary judgment motion that is based solely upon a party’s belated attempt to remedy its inadequate initial proffer, without any valid explanation as to why the additional evidence was not offered in the first instance.  Keating v Town of Burke, 515400, 3rd Dept 4-4-13

 

, , ,

Criteria for Demonstrating Documents Were Material Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation

The Second Department explained the burden of proof for demonstrating documents are immune from discovery as material prepared in anticipation of litigation as follows:

“The burden of proving that a statement is privileged as material prepared solely in anticipation of litigation or trial is on the party opposing discovery” … . More particularly, “[t]he party asserting the privilege that material sought through discovery was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation . . . bears the burden of demonstrating that the material it seeks to withhold is immune from discovery … by identifying the particular material with respect to which the privilege is asserted and establishing with specificity that the material was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation” … . An attorney’s affirmation containing conclusory assertions that requested documents are conditionally immune from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(2) as material prepared in anticipation of litigation, without more, is insufficient to sustain the movant’s burden of demonstrating that the materials were prepared exclusively for litigation … .  New York Schools Ins Reciprocal v Milburn Sales Co, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02227, 2012-01697, Index no 2848/11, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

, ,

Where Attorney Is a Party to a Lawsuit, Attorney’s Submission of an Affirmation as Opposed to an Affidavit in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Is Not a Sufficient Ground for Dismissal of the Complaint

The Second Department determined a complaint could not be dismissed on the ground that an attorney’s unnotarized affirmation was submitted in opposition to the motion, rather than an affidavit:

When an attorney is a party to an action, and affidavits are required to support or oppose a request for relief, that attorney may not rely upon an unnotarized affirmation in lieu of an affidavit, as the facts alleged in that affirmation would not be in admissible form (see CPLR 2106…). However, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, [plaintiff’s] submission of an unnotarized affirmation in lieu of an affidavit in opposition to the … defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them did not warrant the granting of that motion. “CPLR 3211 allows [a] plaintiff to submit affidavits, but it does not oblige him [or her] to do so on penalty of dismissal” … . Accordingly, [defendant’s] failure to submit an affidavit was not fatal to his opposition, and the Supreme Court should not have granted the … defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on that basis. Law Offs of Frishberg v Toman, 2013 NY Slip Op 02224, 2011-04956, 2011-07881, Index No 12965/10, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

, , ,

Whether a Confidential Relationship Existed With Decedent Is a Question of Fact for the Jury; Application of Dead Man’s Statute Explained

In reversing the Surrogate’s Court verdict, the Third Department, in a decision by Justice Spain, determined that the existence of a confidential relationship with the decedent is a question of fact for the jury (Surrogate’s Court determined the existence of the relationship as a matter of law).  In addition, because the matter is to be retried, the Third Department included a useful discussion of how the Dead Man’s Statute (CPLR 4519) should be applied:

Under  the  doctrine of “‘constructive fraud,'” where  a  confidential relationship exists between  two parties to a transaction “‘such that they were dealing on unequal terms due to one party’s weakness, dependence or trust  justifiably reposed  upon  the  other  and  unfair advantage  is rendered  probable,'” the  burden  of proof  with  respect to allegations of undue influence will be shifted to the stronger party to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that no undue influence was used … In determining whether a confidential  relationship  exists,  “the  existence  of  a  family relationship does  not, per se, create a presumption  of undue influence; there must be evidence of other facts or circumstances showing  inequality  or  controlling influence” … ..The  existence of such a relationship will ordinarily be  a question of fact … . *  *  *

The [Dead Man’s] statute precludes an interested party from being “examined as a witness in his [or her] own behalf or interest . . . concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and  the deceased person” (CPLR 4519 …). Given that the “purpose of the rule is ‘to protect the estate of the deceased from claims of the living who, through their own perjury, could make factual assertions which the decedent could not refute in court’…, it   will not preclude any testimony elicited by the representative of the estate, nor does it preclude testimony of transactions between decedent and a non-interested third party …. Further, the statute’s protections with regard to a particular transaction may be waived where the representative “testifies in his [or her] own behalf concerning a personal transaction of his adversary with the deceased” or when he or she “elicits testimony from an interested party on the personal transaction in issue” …  .  Matter of Nealon, 513733, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

,

Court Improperly Amended Allegations in Neglect Petition

The Third Department, in a decision by Justice McCarthy, determined Family Court improperly amended the allegations in a neglect petition:

On this record, summary judgment was improperly granted. Significantly, the  petition as  filed only  alleges that respondent neglected the children as a result of the events surrounding respondent’s March  2011 arrest. Nevertheless, Family Court granted the petition based on  “amplified” allegations of neglect that it found related to the father’s alleged untreated mental illness. No amended petition was filed nor was respondent given an opportunity to amend his answer. While a court may amend the allegations in a neglect proceeding  “to conform  to the proof[,]. . . in such case the respondent shall be given reasonable time to prepare to answer the amended allegations” (Family Ct Act § 1051 [b] …). Matter of Aiden XX, 514147, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

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