You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

THE NONPARTY OPERATOR OF AN ANONYMOUS WEBSITE WHICH POSTED ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS ABOUT RESPONDENT BUSINESS WAS ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN HER ANONYMITY PURSUANT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT; HER MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AIMED AT REVEALING HER IDENTITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FISRT DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined nonparty BehindMLM, the anonymous operator of a website which posts articles, was entitled to her anonymity. The respondent GSB had obtained a default judgment in Germany in a defamation action against Google (which hosts the website) and GoDaddy where the site’s domain name is registered. The defamation action was based on articles posted by BehindMLM. BehindMLM was never notified of GSB suit. GSB brought the instant action pursuant to CPLR 3102(c) to compel Google and GoDaddy to reveal BehindMLM’s identity and served subpoenas on Google and GoDaddy for the relevant documents.. After learning of the action, BehindMLM moved to quash the subpoenas:

BehindMLM posted four articles stating that various corporate entities were engaged in a “Ponzi scheme,” frauds, and scams. In 2022, one of the companies mentioned in one of those articles, petitioner GSB Gold Standard (GSB), brought two separate actions against Google in a German court … . * * *​

The issue of whether BehindMLM’s statements were defamatory was not actually litigated and determined in that action, since the German orders were issued on default … . BehindMLM was not a party to the German proceedings, was not notified of the proceedings and was not given an opportunity to litigate the matter … . * * *

We hold that when a party seeks an anonymous online speaker’s identifying information, courts must first require the party to take reasonable efforts to provide the speaker with notice and an opportunity to appear in the action or proceeding … . * * *

When a speaker asserts a First Amendment right to anonymous online speech … , a court should consider the First Amendment rights at stake, whether the party seeking disclosure has stated a showing of a prima facie defamation claim, and the balance of the equities … . This Court has stated that “we should protect against the use of subpoenas by corporations and plaintiffs with business interests to enlist the help of ISPs via court orders to silence their online critics, which threatens to stifle the free exchange of ideas” … .  * * *

… [E]ven if GSB had stated a valid claim of defamation per se by alleging that the statements were false and harmed its business … , the broad and conclusory allegations in the verified petition did not sufficiently establish the falsity of BehindMLM’s statements … . Upon our consideration of all relevant factors, including the weak evidentiary showing and BehindMLM’s asserted First Amendment right to speak anonymously on matters of public concern, we conclude that, on the record as now presented, BehindMLM is constitutionally entitled to maintain her anonymity. Matter of GSB Gold Std. Corp. AG v Google LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02983, First Dept 5-30-24

​Practice Point: Here the First Department protected the First Amendment rights of the nonparty anonymous operator of a website which published allegedly defamatory articles about respondent. The respondent’s subpoenas for documents which would reveal the nonparty’s identity were quashed.

 

, , ,

SECOND DEPARTMENT TO JUDGES: DON’T DISMISS A COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, made the following point explicit: a sua sponte dismissal of a complaint is almost never appropriate and almost always will be reversed:

Sua sponte dismissals are not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2] …). The reason is that such dismissals are not, by definition, the product of motions made on notice for that particular relief as otherwise statutorily required. Nevertheless, the Second Department has consistently recognized the gravity of sua sponte dismissals and the lack of opportunity for aggrieved parties to have been heard on the dispositive issue at the trial level. Those circumstances have caused the Second Department to typically grant discretionary applications for leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701[c]), or relatedly, to deem notices of appeal to be applications for leave to appeal, which have been liberally granted … . * * *

The importance that courts not dismiss actions sua sponte absent extraordinary circumstances is grounded in a fundamental concept that lawyers and judges know well—that due process requires parties to be given notice and an opportunity to be heard about litigation issues … . Courts are to be bastions of due process. It is not the role of the court, within the moat of that bastion, to seize upon an issue not raised by any party in a motion and to unilaterally dismiss an action on the basis of that discrete issue, without providing the party whose claim is dismissed so much as notice of the issue and an opportunity for all parties to be heard on it. The Court of Appeals has cautioned the judiciary that “[w]e are not in the business of blindsiding litigants, who expect us to decide [matters] on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Louis, 2024 NY Slip Op 02948, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: Judges should not dismiss complaints sua sponte because the parties are not given proper notice of the relevant issue and the parties do not have the opportunity to be heard on it.

 

, ,

PHYSICAL INCAPACITY CAN BE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, BUT THE PERIOD OF DISABILITY DOES NOT TOLL THE ONE YEAR AND 90 DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to file a late notice claim against the NYC Transit Authority should not have been granted because the motion was made more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued. Although physical incapacity can be a reasonable excuse for failing to file a notice of claim withing 90 days, it does not toll the period for making a timely motion for leave to file a late notice of claim:

The court erred … in concluding that plaintiff’s hospitalization from the February 12, 2020 accident until April 11, 2020 rendered timely plaintiff’s January 25, 2021 notice of claim upon defendant NYC Transit Authority … . Although physical incapacity may be properly considered as a reasonable excuse under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for the failure to timely file a notice of claim … , it is relevant only upon timely motion for leave to file a late notice of claim “made before or after the commencement of the action but not more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued” … . Melgarejo v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02892, First Dept 5-28-24

Practice Point: A period of physical incapacity may be a reasonable excuse for failing to file a timely notice of claim, but it does not toll the one year and 90 day statute of limitations for filing a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim.

 

, , ,

DISPUTES INVOLVING THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ARE RESOLVED UNDER THE LAW OF THE PLACE OF INCORPORATION (SCOTS LAW HERE); COURTS CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FOREIGN LAW; HERE PLAINTIFFS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY UNDER SCOTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined (1) in international business disputes involving the internal affairs of foreign corporations, the law of the place of incorporation (Scots law here) applies; (2) the court can take judicial of the foreign law; and (3) plaintiffs stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under Scots law:

Consistent with our precedent, we clarify that the substantive law of a company’s place of incorporation presumptively applies to causes of action arising from its internal affairs. Moreover, because of the important interests that the internal affairs doctrine represents, we decline to create any broad exceptions to that presumption. Rather, in order to overcome this presumption and establish the applicability of New York law, a party must demonstrate both that (1) the interest of the place of incorporation is minimal—i.e., that the company has virtually no contact with the place of incorporation other than the fact of its incorporation, and (2) New York has a dominant interest in applying its own substantive law … . * * *

CPLR 4511 gives courts “substantial flexibility in determining whether to take judicial notice of foreign law and ascertaining its content” … . As the statutory language notes, a court must take judicial notice of foreign law upon request and if the court is furnished with sufficient information to do so; otherwise, a court may take judicial notice of foreign law in its discretion … . * * *

Plaintiffs’ allegations—viewed in their most favorable light and according them every possible favorable inference—are sufficient to state a claim that the director defendants at least owed limited fiduciary duties to plaintiffs. Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02841, CtApp 5-23-24

Practice Point: Disputes involving the internal affairs of foreign corporation are resolved under the law of the place of incorporation (Scots law here).

Practice Point: Courts can take judicial notice of foreign law.

Practice Point: Here plaintiffs stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under Scots law.

 

, ,

THE LAWSUIT SOUGHT RETURN OF A DOWN PAYMENT UNDER A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT; BECAUSE THE LAWSUIT DID NOT AFFECT TITLE, POSSESSION, USE OR ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY A NOTICE OF PENDENCY IS NOT APPROPRIATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice of pendency should have been cancelled because the lawsuit, which sought the return of a down payment under a real estate contract, did not affect title, possession, use or enjoyment of the real property:

Pursuant to CPLR 6501, “[a] notice of pendency may be filed only when ‘the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property'” … . “When the court entertains a motion to cancel a notice of pendency in its inherent power to analyze whether the pleading complies with CPLR 6501, it neither assesses the likelihood of success on the merits nor considers material beyond the pleading itself; ‘the court’s analysis is to be limited to the pleading’s face'” … .

Here, the complaint, on its face, only asserts causes of action to recover monetary damages and does not seek relief that would affect the title to, or the possession, use, or enjoyment of, the property. Mallek v Felmine, 2024 NY Slip Op 02808, Second Dept 5-22-24

Practice Point: A notice of pendency is appropriate only when the underlying lawsuit involves title, possession, use or enjoyment of real property. A suit for the return of a down payment does not warrant a notice of pendency.

 

, , ,

CITY RETIREES THREATENED WITH ELIMINATION OF THEIR EXISTING HEALTH INSURANCE AND AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT IN A MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER THEIR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined the doctrine of promissory estoppel justified a permanent injunction prohibiting the city from “eliminating … retirees’ existing health insurance, automatically enrolling them in a new Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan, enforcing a June 30, 2023 deadline for retirees to opt out of the new plan, and implementing any other aspect of the City’s new retiree healthcare policy:”

… [T]he record shows a clear and unambiguous promise, made for more than 50 years, that upon an employee’s retirement, Medicare would provide the first level of hospital and medical insurance benefits and the City’s benefits program would provide the second level to fill in the gaps. * * *

… [T]he record shows detrimental reliance on the promise. * * *

… [P]etitioners have demonstrated injury. Many City retirees stated that their chosen providers and hospitals, like many healthcare providers, do not accept the MAPs [Medicare Advantage Plans]. The City’s plan to automatically enroll petitioners in the Aetna MAP and terminate their current Medigap coverage would result in injury to retirees whose medical providers do not accept the Aetna MAP. * * *

The particular manner in which the parties chose to litigate this action before Supreme Court resulted in a record with significant evidentiary support for petitioners’ position and very little support for respondents’ position. That record and the arguments the parties chose to make on appeal lead to the conclusion that petitioners are entitled to relief under their promissory estoppel cause of action. Matter of Bentkowski v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02771, First Dept 5-21-24

Practice Point: Here the promissory estoppel doctrine was applied to permanently enjoin the city from eliminating city retirees’ health insurance and automatically enrolling them in a Medicare Advantage Plan.

 

, ,

AN UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT PROVISION CONSTITUTES “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WHICH WILL SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined the provision of the contract which prohibited plaintiffs from bringing a breach of contract suit was unambiguous. An unambiguous contract constitutes “documentary evidence” which supports a motion to dismiss:

On a motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence conclusively establishes a defense as a matter of law … . A motion to dismiss based on a written agreement that contains a material ambiguity must be denied because such an agreement does not conclusively establish the asserted defense as a matter of law … . Ambiguity exists if the agreement, “read as a whole, fails to disclose its purpose and the parties’ intent . . ., or when specific language is ‘susceptible of two reasonable interpretations’ ” … . On the other hand, the agreement is unambiguous and should be enforced on its plain terms “if the language it uses has ‘a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception . . ., and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion’ ” … .

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, Section 8.05 unambiguously bars them from commencing an action on their own behalf to enforce their third-party beneficiary rights under the Agreement. Section 8.05 negates any right of the Holders except as “expressly set forth” therein, and it expressly sets forth the right of the Required Holders or the Holder Committee to commence certain types of actions or proceedings. Nothing in Section 8.05 expressly sets forth a right of the Holders to commence an action on their own behalf or otherwise. Mulacek v ExxonMobil Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 02724, CtApp 5-16-24

Practice Point: Here the contract unambiguously limited the authority to bring a breach of contract action to a certain class of shareholders which did not include plaintiffs. The contract constituted “documentary evidence” which supported dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).

 

,

LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT APPLY TO SLIPPING ON A STAIRCASE STEP, THE PERMANENT STAIRCASE IS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD AN INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) Labor Law 240(1) does not apply to slipping on a staircase step; and (2) plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the pleadings to assert a violation the Industrial Code in support of the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action:

“‘[L]eave to amend the pleadings to identify a specific, applicable Industrial Code provision may properly be granted, even after the note of issue has been filed, where the plaintiff makes a showing of merit, and the amendment involves no new factual allegations, raises no new theories of liability, and causes no prejudice to the defendant'” … . “Mere lateness is not a barrier” to amendment, absent prejudice … , which exists where the nonmoving party “has been hindered in the preparation of [its] case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of [its] position” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars to allege a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(e) with regard to the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action. The plaintiff made a showing of merit, the amendment presented no new factual allegations or new theories of liability, and the amendment did not prejudice the defendants. The defendants were put on sufficient notice through the complaint, the bill of particulars, and the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action related to the defendants’ alleged failure to provide proper safety devices, such as a chute or hoist, to be used in the removal of demolition debris from the building during demolition operations. * * *

… [D]efendants established, prima facie, that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable to the facts of this case … . The permanent staircase from which the plaintiff fell was a normal appurtenance to the building and was not designed as a safety device to protect him from an elevation-related risk … . Verdi v SP Irving Owner, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02721, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: A permanent staircase is not a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).

Practice Point: Amendment of pleadings alleging a violation of Labor Law 241(6) to add the violation of an Industrial Code provision should generally be allowed, even if late.

 

, ,

RESIDENTS WHO DO NOT LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CHALLENGED FENCE DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO ASSERT A ZONING VIOLATION; BECAUSE THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION APPROVED CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE, THEY ARE NECESSARY PARTIES IN THIS ZONING-VIOLATION PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) plaintiff property owners who did not live in close proximity to the proposed fence around school property did not have standing to assert a zoning violation; and (2) the NYS Department of Education (SED) and the Commissioner of Education, which authorized construction of the fence, are necessary parties. The plaintiffs alleged the local school district violated local zoning laws by not seeking approval from the village before starting construction of the fence:

A party seeking standing to challenge an administrative action must establish that the injury it sustained was “different in kind and degree from the community generally” … . A party residing “in the immediate vicinity” of the subject property suffers harm greater than the community at large when the subject property violates a zoning law because “loss of value of individual property may be presumed from depreciation of the character of the immediate neighborhood” … . …

… “[N]ecessary parties are persons who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action and must be made plaintiffs or defendants” ( … CPLR 1001[a]). SED and the Commissioner are necessary parties because the Supreme Court’s determination would necessarily determine their rights to set school safety standards and approve plans for school construction … . Matter of Cuomo v East Williston Union Free Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 02702, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Only residents who live in close proximity to property alleged to violate zoning laws have standing to assert a zoning violation.

Practice Point: When necessary parties have not been included in a lawsuit, the court should try to make them parties.

 

, , ,

MOTHER’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND EVASIVE TESTIMONY DID NOT AMOUNT TO “FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT” WARRANTING THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have awarded petitioner attorney’s fees as a sanction against mother based on mother’s testimony in the proceedings: Mother’s conduct was not “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 131-1.1(a):

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a), the court is authorized to award a party in a civil action “reasonable attorney’s fees . . . resulting from frivolous conduct.” Conduct is frivolous if “(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false” … . “A party seeking the imposition of a sanction or an award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) has the burden of demonstrating that the conduct of the opposing party was frivolous within the meaning of the rule” … .

Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the mother engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of the rule. Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the mother’s inconsistent statements and evasive testimony were not frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 … . Matter of Edwin C. v Fenny C., 2024 NY Slip Op 02700,, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Here in this Family Court proceeding petitioner was awarded attorney’s fees as a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 131-1.1(a) based on mother’s “inconsistent statements” and “evasive testimony.” Mother’s conduct was not “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 131-1.1(a). The petition should not have been granted.

 

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