You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE COURTS CAN COMPEL (MANDAMUS) THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION (IRC) TO DRAW THE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS; THE IRC IS ORDERED TO SUBMIT ITS REDISTRICTING PLAN BY FEBRUARY 28, 2024 (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the courts can compel (mandamus) the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to draw the legislative districts. The opinion is far too comprehensive to fairly summarize:

In 2014, the voters of New York amended our Constitution to provide that legislative districts be drawn by an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). The Constitution demands that process, not districts drawn by courts. Nevertheless, the IRC failed to discharge its constitutional duty. That dereliction is undisputed. The Appellate Division concluded that the IRC can be compelled to reconvene to fulfill that duty; we agree. There is no reason the Constitution should be disregarded. Matter of Hoffmann v New York State Ind. Redistricting Commn., 2023 NY Slip Op 06344, CtApp 12-12-23

Practice Point: The courts have the power to compel the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to submit a redistricting plan. The IRC was ordered to do so by February 28, 2024.

 

, , ,

THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED IN THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WAS UNAMBIGUOUS AND PROVIDED EACH PARTY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ATTORNEY’S FEES; IT WAS THEREFORE ERROR TO AWARD FATHER ATTORNEY’S FEES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the stipulation incorporated but not merged in to the judgment of divorce, which provided that each party was responsible for their own attorney’s fees, controlled. Therefore the award of attorney’s fees to father was error:

… [T]he parties executed a written stipulation of settlement containing the provision, “as and for a global resolution, each party shall be responsible for the payment of his and her respective attorney fees.”

“A stipulation of settlement that is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation” … . “Generally, where the parties have agreed to provisions in a settlement agreement which govern the award of attorney’s fees, the agreement’s provisions, rather than statutory provisions, control” … . If the contract is clear and unambiguous, it is to be interpreted so as to give effect to the parties’ intent and the intent is to be gleaned from within the four corners of the document … . Here, the fees awarded were as a result of the initial custody determination, and a review of the stipulation of settlement reveals no ambiguity as the agreement clearly provides that each party is to be responsible for his and her respective counsel fees and we must give its terms their plain meaning … . Moreover, in rendering its determination, Supreme Court did not reference the stipulation’s express provision that each parent shall be responsible for his and her counsel fees, thus, it erred in awarding the father counsel fees … . Daryl N. v Amy O., 2023 NY Slip Op 06286, Third Dept 12-7-23

Practice Point: A stipulation of settlement incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract which supersedes statutory provisions. The unambiguous provision in the stipulation that each party is responsible for their own attorney’s fees controls. Attorney’s fees should not have been awarded to father.

 

,

ALTHOUGH VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS ON A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY WAIVE THE PERSONAL JURISDICTION DEFENSE TO THE FAILURE TO MOVE TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR, HERE THE GARNISHMENT OF DEFENDANT’S WAGES FOR MORE THAN A YEAR DID NOT WAIVE THE DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not waive the personal jurisdiction defense (CPLR 5015(a)(4)) by waiting more that a year to move to vacate the default judgment, despite the garnishment of defendant’s wages during that time. Voluntary payments on a default judgment would have waived the defense, but not garnishment:

The proper approach for determining whether a defendant has waived the CPLR 5015(a)(4) personal jurisdiction defense involves the consideration of whether the defendant’s particular actions amount to “an intentional relinquishment of a known right” … , and results from the taking of some affirmative action evincing the intent to accept a judgment’s validity — such as the making of voluntary payments to satisfy a default judgment prior to moving to vacate … . The mere fact that a defendant, like defendant here, was subject to payments pursuant to a wage garnishment order for more than one year without taking some action is not, without more, a proper basis for finding waiver of the ability to seek relief under CPLR 5015(a)(4) … . Esgro Capital Mgt., LLC v Banks, 2023 NY Slip Op 06312, First Dept 12-7-23

Practice Practice: Making voluntary payments on a default judgment would waive a defendant’s personal-jurisdiction defense to the failure to move to vacate a default judgment within a year. But the garnishment of defendant’s wages for more than a year did not waive the defense.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS DO NOT CONTEST THE APPEALS AND WILL NOT PURSUE THE LITIGATION, THE APPEALS ARE NOT MOOT BECAUSE THE ORDER MAY AFFECT RELATED ACTIONS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS; THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, BROUGHT BEFORE DEFENDANTS ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) despite the fact that the plaintiffs indicated they do not contest the appeals and will not pursue the action which had been dismissed, the appeals are not moot because the dismissal may affect related actions against the defendants; and (2) the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, brought before the defendants had answered the amended complaint, was premature:

While plaintiffs do not contest the appeals and have represented that they will not be pursuing the underlying litigation, this does not render defendants’ appeals moot. The mootness doctrine will deprive a court of the ability to review a case where a change in circumstances between the parties has eliminated the controversy that once existed … . However, an appeal is not moot where “the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” … . Defendants have the right to appeal the order addressing the motion to dismiss because it may serve as unfavorable precedent in related cases that have been brought against them. Hutcher v Madison Sq. Garden Entertainment Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 06314, First Dept 12-7-23

Practice Point: An appeal is not moot when it is not contested if the order appealed from could affect related actions against the appellants.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD A VERIFICATION IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, held that the plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim in this wrongful death action against the defendant city should not have been denied:

“Where there is no showing of prejudice to a municipality, the fact that a notice of claim was not verified by a claimant may be disregarded” … . Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross-motion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) for leave to amend the notice of claim to add a verification from the plaintiff’s attorney that the plaintiff lives in a different county than the attorney, as the City defendants failed to demonstrate that they would be prejudiced by the amendment … . Watts v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 06276, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: Where there is no prejudice to the municipality, the fact that a notice of claim was not verified can be disregarded.

 

THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DID NOT NULLIFY THE COUNTERCLAIMS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the dismissal of the complaint did not nullify the counterclaims for which discovery had been demanded:

… Supreme Court should not have denied, as academic, the [plaintiffs’] cross-motions pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the counterclaims and to compel the defendants to comply with certain discovery demands. “A cause of action contained in a counterclaim . . . shall be treated, as far as practicable, as if it were contained in a complaint” (CPLR 3019[d] …). “Thus, dismissal of the . . . complaint did not, in itself, extinguish the [defendants’] counterclaims,” which were independent of the causes of action asserted in the complaint … . Banschick v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 06231, Second Dept 12-6-23

Practice Point: Here the dismissal of the complaint should not have been deemed to render the counterclaims academic. Causes of action in counterclaims should be treated as if they were in a complaint.

 

, , ,

THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THEREFORE THE STATUTE CONFERRED IMMUNITY ON DEFENDANT NURSING HOME RE: COVID-19 PRECAUTIONS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF THE COVID PRECAUTIONS TAKEN BY DEFENDANT NURSING HOME (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, determined that the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA), which conferred immunity on nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, precluded the COVID-related negligence action against defendant nursing home. The Third Department ruled that the repeal of the EDTPA should not be applied retroactively. Therefore the statute was in effect at the relevant time. The Third Department further held that the evidence of proper COVID-19 precautions offered by the nursing home was not refuted by the plaintiff:

… [T]he ultimate repeal of the EDTPA contained no express indicator of retroactivity — rather, the Legislature simply stated that the repeal would “take effect immediately” … . * * *

Turning to plaintiff’s argument that retroactivity is appropriate because the repeal was remedial in nature, “[c]lassifying a statute as ‘remedial’ does not automatically overcome the strong presumption of prospectivity since the term may broadly encompass any attempt to supply some defect or abridge some superfluity in the former law” … . Based upon all of the foregoing, and noting that the retroactive application of the repeal of the EDTPA would merely punish healthcare providers “for past conduct they cannot change — an objective [that has been] deemed illegitimate as a justification for retroactivity” … we hold that the repeal of the EDTPA was not retroactive … . Whitehead v Pine Haven Operating LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06180, Third Dept 11-30-23

Practice Point: The repeal of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) should not be applied retroactively to remove immunity related to COVID precautions conferred on a nursing home during the life of the statute.

 

,

THE RIGHT TO SEEK REMOVAL OF A CLOUD ON TITLE IS NEVER BARRED BY A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action which sought to remove a cloud on title should not have been dismissed as time-barred because the right to that relief is never barred by a statute of limitations:

Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss as time-barred the first and second causes of action, which sought to set aside and cancel, as null and void, the two mortgages held by the defendants. The Trust, as the alleged owner of the subject property, is “presumptively entitled to possession” … , and the first and second causes of action seek to remove the cloud on title resulting from the allegedly fraudulent mortgages. “[W]here a plaintiff seeks to remove a cloud on title, the right to such relief ‘is never barred by the Statute of Limitations. It is a continuing right which exists as long as there is an occasion for its exercise'” … . Mostafa v Pension Solutions, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06134, Second Dept 11-29-30

Practice Point: The right to seek removal of a cloud on title is never barred by a statute of limitations.

 

, , ,

THE STIPULATION RE: SHARING HUSBAND’S PENSION AT A FUTURE DATE WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND NEED NOT BE REFORMED; THE STIPULATION WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE DIVORCE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE REFORMED PURSUANT TO A MOTION, A PLENARY ACTION IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the stipulation that was incorporated but not merged into the divorce judgment was not ambiguous and should not have reformed the stipulation based upon a mutual mistake. The stipulation was not ambiguous and required the husband to share his pension when he turned 62. In addition, reformation of the stipulation was not appropriate pursuant to a motion. A plenary action is required to reform stipulation which is incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce:

… Supreme Court should have rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the stipulation of settlement was ambiguous. The interpretation of the stipulation advanced by the plaintiff would render meaningless the terms of the stipulation providing that distribution of pension benefits to the plaintiff would commence in the future, when the defendant reached the age of 62 … . Inasmuch as the language of the stipulation disclosed the parties’ intent to defer the plaintiff’s pension distribution until the defendant reached age 62, at a time he would have been eligible for regular service retirement benefits, and is not subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, the agreement is not ambiguous … .

… [T]o the extent that the Supreme Court determined that the stipulation of settlement was affected by a mutual mistake, reformation was not appropriate. A motion is not the proper vehicle for challenging a separation agreement incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce. Rather, the plaintiff was required to commence a plenary action to reform the stipulation … . In any event, reformation of the stipulation was unwarranted, as the parties’ mistake regarding the category of benefits the defendant would receive did not “involve a fundamental assumption of the contract” … . Anderson v Anderson, 2023 NY Slip Op 06108, Second Dept 11-29-23

Practice Point: Here the judge should not have determined the stipulation incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce was ambiguous because it was subject to only one interpretation.

Practice Point: A stipulation which is incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce cannot be reformed pursuant to a motion. A plenary proceeding must be commenced.

 

,

THE 90-DAY DEMAND REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE COURT’S ORDER; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT A SHOWING OF MERIT; THE ISSUE, FIRST RAISED ON APPEAL, WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action should have been restored to the active calendar because the 90-day demand required by CPLR 3216 was never provided. The issue was properly considered for the first time on appeal because, had the issue been raised below, it could not have been ignored:

Here, the order dated June 26, 2018 … directed the filing of a note of issue by June 29, 2018, but failed to provide the plaintiff with 90 days within which to comply with that directive. Thus, the order dated June 26, 2018, did not constitute a valid 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 … . Moreover, the order dated June 26, 2018, did not contain the requisite language advising that failure to file a note of issue would be the basis for a motion to dismiss … . …

Although the plaintiff’s contentions i… are raised for the first time on appeal, they may be reached, as they involve issues of law appearing on the face of the record that could not have been avoided if they had been raised at the proper juncture … . OneWest Bank, FSB v Segal, 2023 NY Slip Op 06146, Second Dept 11-29-23

Practice Point: The failure to provide the 90-demand required by CPLR 3216 is reversible error which can be raised for the first time on appeal.

 

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