You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

Defendants Accused of Crimes Not Listed in the Controlling Statutes Are Not Eligible for the Judicial Diversion Program—The Statutes Do Not Allow for Judicial Discretion

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Centra, the Fourth Department determined a Monroe County Court Judge exceeded his authority by allowing defendants accused of crimes not listed in the relevant statute to participate in the judicial diversion program.  The Court wrote:

CPL 216.00 (1) provides as follows: “ ‘Eligible defendant’ means any person who stands charged in an indictment or a superior court information with a class B, C, D or E felony offense defined in article two hundred twenty or two hundred twenty-one of the penal law or any other specified offense as defined in subdivision four of section 410.91…’”

It is undisputed that respondent defendants were not charged with any offenses under Penal Law §§ 220 or 221, or any specified offense in CPL 410.91. In our opinion, that ends the inquiry, and respondent defendants are not eligible for judicial diversion. It is well settled that “ ‘[w]here the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts must give effect to its plain meaning’ ” ….Likewise, “statutory interpretation always begins with the words of the statute” … .* * *

… [W]e agree with petitioner that she is also entitled to declaratory relief . “Although a declaratory judgment often revolves around a particular set of facts, [t]he remedy is available in cases where a constitutional question is involved or the legality or meaning of a statute is in question and no question of fact is involved” … . [T]he “criminal court’s ruling must have an obvious effect extending far beyond the matter pending before it so that it is likely that the issue will arise again with the same result in other cases” … .

[The opinion includes discussion of the nature and application of petitions for mandamus to compel and prohibition, and the County Court Judge’s argument that the use of judicial discretion re: the diversion program is allowed by statute.] Matter of Doorley v Hon John L. DeMarco, et al, 122, OP12-01563, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

, ,

Failure to Identify Notice Witness, Erroneous Missing Witness Charge and Erroneous Preclusion of Evidence Required Reversal.

A judgment in favor of the plaintiff after trial was reversed by the First Department because: (1) plaintiff’s son, a notice witness who testified about the alleged defective condition at the core of the lawsuit, had not been identified before trial; (2) a missing witness charge re: a purported employee of the defendant was given in the absence of proof of the employee’s existence; and (3), the testimony of defense witnesses was erroneously precluded or limited.  Collazo v Riverbay Co-op, 2013 NY Slip Op 01904, First Dept. 3-21-13

 

,

Prior Ruling on Appeal is Law of the Case for Both Trial and Appellate Courts

In a case which resulted in a second appeal, defendant contested the validity of a board meeting in both the first and second appeal.  The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, explained that the ruling in the first appeal was binding both on the trial court and the appellate court as the “law of the case: “

An appellate court’s resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court . . . [and] operates to foreclose re-examination of the question absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law”… .  Board of Mgrs. … v Seligson, 2013 NY Slip Op 01926, 1st Dept. 3-21-13

 

, ,

Wife’s Derivative Claim Added to Complaint After Expiration of Statute of Limitations

The First Department held that a wife’s derivative claim in a medical malpractice action brought by her husband could be added to the complaint after the statute of limitations had expired (disagreeing with the 2nd and 3rd Departments):

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to amend. The original complaint placed Kings Harbor on notice of the underlying transaction (see CPLR 203 [f] …. We are in accord with the 3rd Department’s view that “[i]n the absence of any prejudice and under these circumstances, Supreme Court should be permitted to exercise that same discretion which would allow the addition of a plaintiff’s derivative cause of action” … . We disagree with the cases holding that a spouse’s derivative claim cannot be added to a complaint through the relation back provision of CPLR 203 (f) (see e.g. Dowdall v General Motors Corp., 34 AD3d 1221, 1222 [4th Dept 2006]; Lucido v Vitolo, 251 AD2d 383, 384 [2d Dept 1998]).  Giambrone v Kings Harbor Multicare Ctr., 2013 NY Slip Op 01898, 9235N 307139/09, 1st Dept. 3-21-13

 

,

Criteria for Dismissal of Cause of Action Based on Documentary Evidence Explained 

The Second Department, in reversing the dismissal of causes of action in a complaint, explained the criteria for dismissal based on documentary evidence:

A motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be appropriately granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Here, to the extent that the sponsor’s submissions constituted “documentary evidence” within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) …, they failed to utterly refute the cooperative’s allegations … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the sponsor’s motion which were to dismiss the first, second, and fourth causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). North Shore Towers Apts. Inc. v Three Towers Assoc., 2013 NY Slip Op 01812, 2012-00848, Index No 11834/10, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13​

 

,

Criteria for Motion to Renew Based on New Facts Not Met

In reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, the Second Department explained that CPLR 2221(a) had been misused to revisit a prior motion, and that the motion should have been brought under CPLR 2221 (e) as a motion for leave to renew based on new facts.  The motion should have been denied because the defendant failed to provide “reasonable justification” for the failure to present the “new” facts in the first motion:

The Supreme Court improperly granted the defendant’s motion, denominated as one pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to modify the order entered September 28, 2011. CPLR 2221(a) merely provides that certain motions may be made, on notice, to the judge who signed the order that is the subject of the motion. In actuality, the defendant sought to present new facts in partial opposition to the motion for summary judgment, which were not presented on the initial motion. Thus, the defendant’s motion should have been made pursuant to CPLR 2221(e) for leave to renew its prior opposition to the motion for summary judgment, based upon new facts, and we construe it as such. However, the defendant failed to show its entitlement to that relief. The defendant failed to demonstrate “reasonable justification” for its failure to present such facts on the prior motion (CPLR 2221[e][2]). Mount Sinai Hosp v Dust Tr., Inc., 2013 NY Slip Op 01811, 2012-03767, Ind No 10715/10, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13

 

, ,

Court’s Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Reversed

The Second Department reversed the trial court’s sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff’s mortgage foreclosure complaint.  The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing and imposed sanctions based on plaintiff’s alleged reliance upon a “robosigner” (according to the trial court’s own Internet research).  On the issues of “sua sponte” dismissal and standing, the Second Department wrote:

The Supreme Court abused its discretion in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and cancellation of the notice of pendency … . “A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with any extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Moreover, as the defendants failed to answer the complaint and did not make pre-answer motions to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint by the court … .  HSBC Bank USA, NA v Taher, 2013 NY Slip Op 01806, 2011-06455, 2012-00841, Index No 9320/09, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13

 

Amendment of Reply to Add Statute of Limitations Defense Allowed

In affirming the grant of a motion to amend a reply to add the “statute of limitations” defense, the Second Department wrote:

“Leave to amend a pleading should be freely given (see CPLR 3025[b]), provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” … . “A determination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court’s broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed” … . “Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side” … .The plaintiff waived its statute of limitations defense by failing to assert it as an affirmative defense in its initial reply to the appellants’ counterclaims (see CPLR 3211[e]). However, defenses waived under CPLR 3211(e) can nevertheless be interposed by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) so long as the amendment does not cause the other party prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay … . Aurora Loan Services, LLC v Dimura, et al, 2013 NY Slip Op 01797, 2012-04739,Index No 2455/09, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13

 

,

Alternative Holding in Prior Appeal Did Not Have Preclusive Effect

In a case involving a contract of sale for a painting (for 2 million euros), the First Department noted that a prior decision of that same court which stated the standing issue was not preserved for appellate review, and that if the issue were to be considered it would be rejected, was not binding for res judicata/collateral estoppel purposes:

[Defendant] was not barred by either res judicata or collateral estoppel from arguing the issue of standing in his motion to vacate the July 8, 2009 order. In particular, this Court’s holding on the prior appeal in this case (79 AD3d 534) cannot be considered binding for collateral estoppel purposes because this Court’s initial holding as to the issue of standing was that it had not been preserved for review. It was only as an alternate holding that this Court stated that the standing argument, if it were to be considered, would be rejected … .  Van Damme v Gelber, 2013 NY Slip Op 01782, 601995/07, 590203/08, 9553B, 1st Dept. 3-19-13

 

 

, ,

Flaws in Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Allegations in Complaint Explained

The First Department, in affirming the dismissal of fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims in a contract action, described the flaws in the complaint as follows:

The court properly dismissed the fraud claim for failure to plead fraud with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b) and for failure to plead loss causation … .

The court properly dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim for failure to plead a special relationship. An arm’s length business relationship, as existed here, is not generally considered to be the sort of confidential or fiduciary relationship that would support a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation … . Nor did [defendants] “possess unique or specialized expertise” … .  Greentech Reasearch LLC v Wissman, 2013 NY Slip Op 01787, 9561, 602477/09, 1st Dept. 3-19-13

 

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