You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Denial of Receipt of Service Mandates a Hearing 

In determining the affidavit of service of a complaint in a foreclosure action had been rebutted by the appellant’s sworn denial (requiring a hearing), the Second Department wrote:

Where there is a sworn denial that a defendant was served with process, the affidavit of service is rebutted and the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction at a hearing by a preponderance of the evidence …. In order to warrant a hearing on the issue of service, a defendant must swear to detailed and specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavit ….

Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining the motion without first conducting a hearing, as the appellant demonstrated his entitlement to a hearing on the issue of service by his sworn denial, setting forth significant discrepancies between the age and weight of the person allegedly served and the appellant’s actual age and weight at the time of the purported service …. Under these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to a hearing on the issue of whether service was properly effected pursuant to the personal delivery provisions of CPLR 308(1) ….  Emigrant Mtge Co, inc v Westervelt, 2013 NY Slip Op 02536, 2012-08302, Index No 2031/09, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

,

New York Had Jurisdiction to Modify Pennsylvania Support Order

In finding that Family Court had jurisdiction to modify a Pennsylvania support order, the Second Department wrote:

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (hereinafter UIFSA), codified in article 5-B of the Family Court Act, provides, in pertinent part, that a party seeking to modify and/or enforce a child support order issued in another state “shall register that order in this state” (Family Ct Act § 580-609). The parties agree that the support order governing the father’s child support obligations, which was issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania … (hereinafter the Pennsylvania support order) was registered in the Family Court, Suffolk County, pursuant to UIFSA …. The Family Court had jurisdiction to modify the Pennsylvania support order, upon registration thereof, since none of the parties resides in Pennsylvania, the petitioner mother does not reside in New York, and the respondent father, at all relevant times, was subject to personal jurisdiction in Suffolk County (see Family Ct Act § 580-611[a][1]). Matter of Gowda v Reddy, 2013 NY Slip Op 02577, 2011-06440, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

Contacts Insufficient for Long-Arm Jurisdiction

The Third Department upheld the trial court’s determination that plaintiff’s business-related contacts with out-of-state defendants were insufficient to confer New York jurisdiction over them:

Plaintiff entered into a three-month agreement with defendant Yodle, Inc. to conduct an Internet advertising campaign for his divorce document preparation business. Three weeks after agreeing to the terms of the contract, plaintiff emailed defendant Brad Leitch, a Yodle employee who lives and works in North Carolina, and stated that he could not afford to proceed due to unanticipated personal expenses. Relying on the terms of the contract, Yodle refused to refund plaintiff any money and continued the advertising campaign until – just before the end of the three-month term – plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for, among other things, fraud and breach of contract.

* * *Initially, we cannot agree with plaintiff’s contention that Supreme Court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction over Leitch and Long [another Yodle employee who lives and works in Arizona]. Given the nature of their work on plaintiff’s Internet advertising campaign and his limited contact with them via telephone and email, their conduct “did not amount to a purposeful invocation of the privileges of conducting business in New York” so as to confer personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (1) … . Collins … v Yodle, Inc…, 514827, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

, ,

Appellate Courts Have Jurisdiction Pursuant to Article 78 to Review Denial of Request for Reconsideration of Disciplinary Determination by the Department of Education’s Office of Professional Discipline

The Third Department determined it has jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR Art. 78, to review the denial of a request for reconsideration of a disciplinary determination by the Director of the Office of Professional Discipline (Department of Education):

Preliminarily, we reject respondent’s assertion that our Court lacks original subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding. Respondent relies on the fact that only review of “decisions of the board of regents” should be brought to the Appellate Division in the first instance (Education Law § 6510 [5]); all other CPLR article 78 proceedings must be commenced in Supreme Court (see CPLR 7804 [b]; 506 [a], [b]). Here, the Board of Regents never acted upon petitioner’s application because respondent, the Director of OPD, has discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a disciplinary determination is warranted and, only if it is, to then refer the matter to a regents review committee that submits a report to the Board of Regents for a final determination …. We have, however,  previously held that where, as here, respondent  denies an  application for reconsideration, thereby determining  that it does not warrant referral to the Board of Regents, this Court has jurisdiction to review such denial under Education Law § 6510 (5)… .  Matter of Reddy v Catone…, 514467, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

,

Statute of Limitations Where Continuing Duty Allegedly Breached

The Second Department explained the application of the six-year “contract” statute of limitations where the duty alleged to have been breached is a continuing one:

“[W]here a duty imposed prior to a limitations period is a continuing one, the statute of limitations is not a defense to actions based on breaches of that duty occurring within the limitations period” …. Here, the alleged breach is of the defendant’s obligation to pay annual assessments to the plaintiff. Thus, a new breach occurred for statute of limitations purposes each year the defendant failed to make an allegedly required payment to the plaintiff …. Meadowbrook Farms Homeowners Assn, Inc v JZG Resources Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02381, 2011-089/10, Index No 839/10, 2nd Dept 4-10-13

 

 

,

Hearing Required to Determine If Complaint Properly Served

In remitting the case for a hearing to determine whether defendant was properly served with the complaint, the Second Department wrote:

Here, the affidavit of service of the plaintiff’s process server describing service of process on the defendant NES Medical Services of New York, P.C. (hereinafter NES), constituted prima facie evidence of proper service on NES … . In support of that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against NES on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, the appellants submitted an affidavit stating that the person served was neither employed by, nor authorized to accept service for, NES. Where, as here, “there is a sworn denial of service by the defendant, the affidavit of service is rebutted and the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing” …. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on, and a new determination of, that branch of the appellants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against NES on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. Rosario v NES Med Srvs of NY, PC, 2013 NY Slip Op 02388, 2011-10662, Index No 4465/11, 2nd Dept 4-10-13

 

,

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

 

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