You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

PLAINTIFF SUED AN ILLINOIS SCHOOL ALLEGING THAT THE ONLINE COURSES OFFERED BY DEFENDANT SCHOOL DURING THE PANDEMIC CONSTITUTED A TRANSACTION IN NEW YORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LONG-ARM STATUTE; BUT PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE SHE WAS IN NEW YORK WHEN SHE TOOK THE ONLINE COURSES; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not raise a question of fact about whether defendant, an Illinois school, conducted a transaction in New York sufficient to confer long-arm jurisdiction. Because of the pandemic, the courses offered by the school were online. Plaintiff alleged a breach of contract by the school involving a grading issue. A major flaw in plaintiff’s case was that she did not allege she was in New York when she took the online courses:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in New York so as to subject them to long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1) … . While the plaintiff attests in her affidavit that since March 2020, she has not taken a class at the defendants’ Illinois location, that the only contact she had with the defendants since that date was either virtually or by telephone, and that none of the facts alleged in her complaint took place in person in Illinois, none of this demonstrates that the defendants were engaged in any activity in New York, let alone purposeful activity. Other than the plaintiff’s allegation that she is a New York resident, there is no other reference to New York in the complaint or in the plaintiff’s affidavit. Significantly, the plaintiff’s allegations are devoid of any indication that she was in New York during the time of the alleged communications with the defendants. Greenfader v Chicago Sch. of Professional Psychology, 2023 NY Slip Op 06513, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: It is not clear from the decision whether taking an online course in New York offered by a school in Illinois confers long-arm jurisdiction over the school. Granting the school’s motion to dismiss appears to be based upon the plaintiff’s failure to allege she was in New York when she took the online course.

 

,

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECT A TYPO SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (LABOR LAW 241 AND 241(B) RATHER THAN 240(1)); SUMMARY JUDGMENT CAN BE GRANTED ON AN UNPLEADED CAUSE OF ACTION; HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FOUR-INCH ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WAS DE MINIMIS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to amend the complaint to correct a typographical error should have been granted and noted that a motion for summary judgment can be granted on an unpleaded cause of action. The complaint alleged violation of Labor Law 241 and 241 (b) instead of Labor Law 240(1). The Second Department went on to find that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because there was a question of fact whether the accident was an “elevation-related” event–a cylinder had dropped four inches and injured plaintiff’s finger. The question of fact concerned whether the four-inch height differential was de minimis:

… [T]he proposed amendment corrected a typographical error, did not result in any prejudice or surprise to the defendants, and was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … . 

We note that, despite the fact that the plaintiff had not yet properly pleaded a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action at the time that he made a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), “summary judgment may be awarded on an unpleaded cause of action if the proof supports such cause and if the opposing party has not been misled to its prejudice” … . * * *

The plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden, as he did not prove, as a matter of law, that he sustained the type of elevation-related injury that Labor Law § 240(1) was intended to protect against. Namely, where the cylinder fell only four inches but did so with such force as to crush the plaintiff’s finger, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the elevation differential between the plaintiff and the falling object was de minimis … . Castillo v Hawke Enters., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06505, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: The motion to amend the complaint to correct a typo should have been granted.

Practice Point: Where the facts support it, a summary judgment motion may be based on an unpleaded cause of action.

Practice Point: Here a cylinder dropped four inches, injuring plaintiff’s finger. There was a question of fact whether the elevation-differential was de minimis.

 

,

BECAUSE THE NONPARTY WITNESS, WHO WAS PLAINTIFF’S ASSAILANT, HAD A COMMON NAME AND WAS HOMELESS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE WITNESS’S DATE OF BIRTH AS AN AID IN LOCATING HIM; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE WITNESS’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER HOWEVER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to the birth date of a nonparty witness who was plaintiff’s assailant’s in the underlying event. Because the witness was homeless and had a common name, the witness’s date of birth would help in locating him. Plaintiff was not entitled to the witness’s social security number, however:

Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s request that defendants provide the date of birth of the nonparty witness. “[O]rdinarily the names and addresses of witnesses are a proper subject of disclosure” … . The identity of an active participant in an incident is discoverable because “‘the witness was so closely related to the [incident] that his testimony [became] essential in establishing [its] happening'” … .

Plaintiff seeks disclosure of the date of birth and social security number of the nonparty witness, who was also plaintiff’s assailant in the incident underlying the litigation. Defendants have already disclosed that plaintiff’s assailant, who has a remarkably common name, was homeless. Accordingly, the ordinary disclosure of “names and addresses” is unlikely to assist plaintiff in locating the witness. Disclosure of his date of birth may assist plaintiff in identifying and locating the witness. Defendants are not required to provide the witness’s social security number, however, as courts have recognized a heightened level of confidentiality with respect to an individual’s social security number. Lane v City of New York. 2023 NY Slip Op 06480, First Dept 12-19-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was entitled to discovery of a witness’s date of birth as an aid to locating him because the witness was homeless and had a very common name. However plaintiff was not entitled to the witness’s social security number which is protected by a higher level of confidentiality.

 

, ,

THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY; THE DEFENDANT MORTGAGE COMPANY IS ESTOPPED BY CPLR 213(4)(A) FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE HAS NOT EXPIRED; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING DISCHARGE AND CANCELLATION OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined (1) the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applies retroactively; and (2) because the defendant mortgage company is estopped by CPLR 213(4)(b) from asserting the six-year statute of limitations for foreclosure had not expired, plaintiff’s RPAPL 1501(4) complaint (seeking cancellation and discharge of the mortgage) should not have been dismissed:

Having concluded that FAPA applies retroactively, we must next consider whether defendant is estopped under CPLR 213(4)(b) from asserting that the statute [*6]of limitations for the commencement of a mortgage foreclosure action has not expired because the debt secured by the mortgage was not validly accelerated in connection with the prior foreclosure action. CPLR 213(4)(b)’s potent estoppel bar will not be imposed, and a defendant will be free to assert that the debt secured by the mortgage was not validly accelerated in connection with a prior action, if, and only if, the prior action was dismissed based on an express judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated.

Here, defendant is estopped from asserting that the statute of limitations on a cause of action to foreclose on the mortgage has not expired. An action to foreclose on the mortgage was previously commenced and dismissed. Defendant is not saved by the limited exception afforded by CPLR 213(4)(b) because Supreme Court, in dismissing the foreclosure action, did not make an express determination that the debt secured by the mortgage was not validly accelerated. Rather, the court dismissed the foreclosure action on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants therein … . Genovese v Nationstar Mtge. LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06477, First Dept 12-19-23

Practice Point: The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applies retroactively. Here the defendant mortgage company was estopped by CPLR 214(4)(b) from asserting the six-year statute of limitations for a foreclosure action had not expired.

 

,

THE CONTEMPT AND GAG ORDERS ISSUED IN THIS TRIAL WHERE FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE DEFENDANT ARE NOT APPROPRIATELY CHALLENGED BY A DEMAND FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW; MOTIONS TO VACATE THE ORDERS SHOULD BE MADE; ANY DENIAL OF THE MOTIONS COULD THEN BE APPEALED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined demand for a writ of prohibition (CPLR 7803(2)) and an article 78 review (CPLR 7801(2)) of Contempt Orders and Gag Orders issued by the judge in this trial (where former President Donald Trump is the defendant) were not the proper procedural vehicles. The proper procedure would be to move the vacate the orders and then appeal the denial of the motion:

In determining whether to exercise the court’s discretion and grant a writ of prohibition, several factors are to be considered, including “the gravity of the harm which would be caused by an excess of power” and “whether the excess of power can be adequately corrected on appeal or by other ordinary proceedings at law or in equity” … . Here, the gravity of potential harm is small, given that the Gag Order is narrow, limited to prohibiting solely statements regarding the court’s staff … . Further, while the Gag Order and Contempt Orders were not issued pursuant to formal motion practice, they are reviewable through the ordinary appellate process (see CPLR 5701[a][3] …). For these reasons, a writ of prohibition is not the proper vehicle for challenging the Gag Order and Contempt Orders.

As to the first cause of action, CPLR 7801(2) clarifies that article 78 review is not permitted in a civil or criminal action where it can be reviewed by other means, “unless it is an order summarily punishing a contempt committed in the presence of the court” (CPLR 7801[2]). The Contempt Orders here were not issued “summarily,” nor was the contempt “committed in the presence of the court.” To the extent there may have been appealable issues with respect to any of the procedures the court implemented in imposing the financial sanctions, the proper method of review would be to move to vacate the Contempt Orders, and then to take an appeal from the denial of those motions. Matter of Trump v Engoron, 2023 NY Slip Op 06461, First Dept 12-14-23

Practice Point: The contempt and gag orders issued in this trial of former president Donald Trump cannot be challenged by a demand for a writ of prohibition or an Article 78 review. The proper procedure is to move to vacate the orders and appeal any denial.

 

,

APPELLANT, WHICH HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE, CRITIERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to intervene in this foreclosure proceeding should have been granted. The foreclosure action was commenced by the plaintiff in 2007 and defendants never answered. When plaintiff moved for a default judgment, MAK (the appellant in this case), which had purchased the property while the foreclosure was pending, moved to intervene:

“Upon timely motion, any person shall be permitted to intervene in any action . . . 2. when the representation of the person’s interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment; or 3. when the action involves the disposition or distribution of, or the title or a claim for damages for injury to, property and the person may be affected adversely by the judgment” ([CPLR] § 1012[a]). “‘[I]ntervention may occur at any time, provided that it does not unduly delay the action or prejudice existing parties'” … . “[N]either the fact that the appellant obtained its interest in the subject property after this action was commenced and the notice of pendency was filed, nor the fact that the defendants defaulted in answering or appearing, definitively bars intervention” … . “‘In examining the timeliness of the motion, courts do not engage in mere mechanical measurements of time, but consider whether the delay in seeking intervention would cause a delay in resolution of the action or otherwise prejudice a party'” … .

… MAK was entitled to intervene as of right “since it established that the representation of its interest by the parties would be inadequate, that the action involved the disposition of title to real property, and that it would be bound and adversely affected by a judgment of foreclosure and sale” … . Under the circumstances, MAK’s cross-motion … was timely. “Significantly, it was made in response to the plaintiff’s motion … for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference, . . . [and] since it was made before an order of reference or a judgment of foreclosure and sale was issued, the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the timing of the cross motion” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Islam, 2023 NY Slip Op 06356, Second Dept 12-13-24

Practice Point: Here the party which purchased the property while the foreclosure on the property was pending should have been allowed to intervene when the plaintiff moved for a default judgment and an order of reference. The criteria for a successful motion to intervene in this context are explained.

 

, ,

IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE A PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED ON A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF THE PLAINTIFF MOVES TO DISMISS THE DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bicyclist’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. The court noted that plaintiff’s comparative negligence in a traffic accident case is usually not considered on a summary judgment motion except where, as here, plaintiff moved to dismiss the defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense:

“A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries” … . A plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault in establishing his or her prima facie case against a defendant on the issue of that defendant’s liability … . “[However], the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability where, as here, the plaintiff also seeks dismissal of the defendant’s affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence”… . A motion for]summary judgment “shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of any party” (CPLR 3212[b] …). On a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party … . Garutti v Kim Co Refrig. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 06354, Second Dept 12-13-24

Practice Point: If a plaintiff in a traffic accident case makes a motion for summary judgment which includes a motion to dismiss defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense, the plaintiff’s comparative negligence can properly be considered by the motion court.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT SPECIFIC FACTS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Bloom was entitled to a hearing on whether she was served with the summons and complaint:

Here, the affidavit of the plaintiff’s process server indicated that the process server served Bloom at an address on Avenue W in Brooklyn (hereinafter the Avenue W address) by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint upon a cotenant, who was a person of suitable age and discretion, on May 4, 2019, and mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to Bloom at the Avenue W address on May 6, 2019. However, Bloom’s submission of a sworn statement in which she denied that she resided at the Avenue W address, and a copy of her driver license, which listed a different address as her residence at the time that service upon her was allegedly effectuated, contained specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavit … . Therefore, the presumption of proper service upon Bloom was rebutted and the Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether Bloom was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) … . Garrick v Charles, 2023 NY Slip Op 06353, Second Dept 12-13-23

Practice Point: Here defendant presented specific facts sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper services of process. A hearing should have been ordered.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW A MOTION FOR MORE TIME TO CONDUCT AN IME SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to renew should have been granted and defendant should have been granted more time to conduct an independent medical examination (IME) of plaintiff:

“A motion for leave to renew or reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” … . A motion for leave to reargue “shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[d][2]). A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” … and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . “A combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought” … . …

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, without prejudice, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to renew. The defendant presented new facts and a reasonable justification for failing to present such facts on the prior motion, and demonstrated that the new evidence would have changed the prior determination … . Moreover, the papers submitted by the defendant in support of the motion, as supplemented by the papers submitted by the plaintiff, which expressly incorporated the plaintiff’s prior opposition, were sufficient to determine the motion …. Fulcher v Empire State Grand Council Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite Masons, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06352, Second Dept 12-13-24

Practice Point: The motion to renew presented new facts and a reasonable justification for failing to present those facts in the prior motion. The motion should have been granted.

 

, ,

​PLAINTIFF’S FIRST EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; PLAINTIFF’S SECOND COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE SAME STATUTE; THE SECOND COMPLAINT WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated a cause of action for employment discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Plaintiff had filed a prior complaint which was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff then filed the instant complaint under the same statute by on different grounds. The instant complaint was not precluded the the doctrine of res judicata:

… [T]his cause of action was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. That doctrine “precludes a party from relitigating a claim that has been finally adjudicated on the merits” …  “Although, generally, a dismissal for failure to state a cause of action based on the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading is not a dismissal on the merits, and does not bar the adequate repleading of the claim in a subsequent action, such a determination has preclusive effect as to a new complaint for the same cause of action which fails to correct the defect or supply the omission determined to exist in the earlier complaint” … . The first cause of action alleged in the present complaint was distinct from that alleged in the prior action, the latter of which was based upon an alleged failure of the defendants, among others, to provide a reasonable accommodation in the form of certain medical leave, as well as retaliation for engaging in a protected activity. Thus, the dismissal of those causes of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7) did not bar the first cause of action asserted in the present complaint. Duchemin v Village of E. Hampton, 2023 NY Slip Op 06350, Second Dept 12-13-24

Practice Point: Here the first complaint alleging employment discrimination was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. That is not considered a dismissal on the merits. Therefore the second employment-discrimination complaint, brought under the same body of law, was not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata.

 

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