The Second Department noted that filing a Notice of Appearance does not waive the lack of personal jurisdiction which can be raised in a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) or as a defense in the answer pursuant to CPLR 3211. Frederic v Israel, 2013 NY Slip Op 02049, 2012-03475, Index No 20290/06, 2nd Dept 3-27-13
In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, the Second Department laid out the requirements for determining a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the elements of the theory of agency, the requirements for a judgment based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), and the elements of a cause of action alleging breach of a fiduciary duty. Faith Assembly v Titledge Of NY Abstract, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 02046, 2011-04345, Index No 28579/09, 2nd Dept 3-27-13
The Second Department affirmed the trial court’s determination that plaintiff was unable to demonstrate the defendant had been validly served using the “nail and mail” method:
…[T]he Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR. Where service is effected pursuant to CPLR 308(4), the so-called “nail and mail” method, the plaintiff must demonstrate that service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) or (2) (personal service or residence service) could not be made with ” due diligence'” … .This requirement must be ” strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be received'” … .
Here, the plaintiff produced the process server’s affidavit, which satisfied its prima facie burden regarding service. However, in her responsive affidavit, [defendant] rebutted that showing by stating specifically that (1) she was never personally served in this action, (2) she had never resided at the address where the process server attempted personal service and eventually affixed the papers, and (3) the summons and complaint were never affixed to the door of the subject premises where she had lived for more than 20 years. This showing was sufficient to warrant a hearing … .\At the hearing, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that its process server made a genuine effort to determine [defendant’s] correct address or that he made “quality” efforts to serve her with process … . Aurora Loan Services, LLC v Gaines, et al, 2013 NY Slip Op 02034, 2011-04002, Index No 20180/08, 2nd Dept. 3-27-13
The Fourth Department determined the one month statute of limitations for a motion to reopen a default judgment of tax foreclosure applied even where the respondent asserts he or she was not notified of the proceeding:
We agree with petitioner, however, that respondent’s motion was untimely. “A motion to reopen a default judgment of tax foreclosure ‘may not be brought later than one month after entry of the judgment’ ” … . Here, the judgment of foreclosure was entered on March 31, 2010, and respondent did not move to vacate it until September 12, 2011, nearly 18 months after it was entered. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the statute of limitations set forth in RPTL 1131 applies even where, as here, the property owner asserts that he or she was not notified of the foreclosure proceeding … . Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens …, 353. 12-01666, 4th Dept. 3-22-13
The Fourth Department determined a choice of forum clause must be enforced and noted the difference between choice of forum and choice of law:
Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1). According to the “Standard Terms and Conditions” of the agreement …, “[a]ny litigation arising in any way from this Agreement shall be brought in the Courts of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania having jurisdiction.” That forum selection clause is “ ‘prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be[, inter alia,] unreasonable, unjust, [or] in contravention of public policy’ ” …
Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the enforcement of the forum selection clause does not contravene New York public policy … .
The “Standard Terms and Conditions” also provide that “[t]he laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shall govern the validity of this Agreement, its interpretation and performance,” and plaintiff contends that the enforcement of the “limitation of legal liability” provision of the agreement pursuant to Pennsylvania law violates General Obligations Law §§ 5-322.1 and 5-324 and would thus contravene New York public policy. That contention, however, concerns choice of law, not choice of forum, and it may properly be raised before a court in the forum chosen by the parties in Pennsylvania … .“[O]bjections to a choice of law clause are not a warrant for failure to enforce a choice of forum clause” … . Erie Insurance Company of New York, … v AE Design, Inc., 337, CA 12-01549, 4th Dept. 3-22-13
The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court erred in transferring a case to another venue sua sponte and in determining that an action seeking to annul the denial of a variance affected real property within the meaning of CPLR 507:
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul two determinations of respondent made in connection with petitioner’s application for an area variance from a provision of the Town of Whitestone’s Zoning Ordinance. The proceeding was commenced in Supreme Court, Onondaga County, and by …order …that court, sua sponte, transferred the proceeding to Supreme Court, Oneida County, pursuant to CPLR 507. We agree with petitioner that the court erred in transferring the proceeding sua sponte. CPLR 509 provides that the place of trial may be changed to another county “by order upon motion, or by consent.” CPLR 510 provides the grounds for the change of the place of trial, upon a motion. A court “is authorized to change venue only upon motion and may not do so upon its own initiative” …. Additionally, a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination denying a request for an area variance does not affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property, and thus the court erred in relying on CPLR 507 in transferring the proceeding. Matter of Mimassi v Town of Whitestone Zoning Board of Appeals, 189, CA 12-01652, 4th Dept. 3-22-13
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
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
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
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
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy