You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , ,

THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE EXCUSE; THE LOAN AGREEMENT WAS CRIMINALLY USURIOUS; THE MOTION TO DISIMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the default judgment should have been vacated in the interest of justice and the complaint dismissed based on documentary evidence. The loan which was the basis of the action was criminally usurious:

“CPLR 5015(a) ‘does not provide an exhaustive list as to when a default judgment may be vacated'” … . “In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5015(a), a court may vacate a default ‘for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice'” … . “[A] party is not necessarily required to establish a reasonable excuse in order to be entitled to vacatur in the interest of justice” … . * * *

The plaintiff does not dispute that the agreement effected an annual interest rate exceeding the criminally usurious threshold of 25% (see Penal Law § 190.40).

… “Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Here, … the defendants conclusively established through the submission of the agreement that it constituted a criminally usurious loan … . Crystal Springs Capital, Inc. v Big Thicket Coin, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 05121, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: A motion to vacate a default in the interest of justice does not require a reasonable excuse.

Practice Point: The usurious loan agreement justified dismissal based on documentary evidence.

 

, ,

IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN THE INQUEST ON DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff’s motion to reopen the inquest on damages. Although the motion was untimely, there was no prejudice to the defendants:

… [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, to reopen the inquest in order to permit the plaintiff to submit what the court had indicated was crucial evidence … . Moreover, there was no evidence that the defendants would be prejudiced … . Although the plaintiff’s motion was not made in a timely fashion, a factor which ordinarily weighs against granting such relief … , the record here reflects that the delay may have been due in part to the plaintiff’s confusion regarding the court’s directive as to how to proceed … . Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v Islam, 2023 NY Slip Op 05119, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff sought to reopen the inquest on damages to present crucial evidence which had been requested by the judge. Although the request was untimely, there was no prejudice to the defendants. It was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion.

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE HOME WAS ILLUMINATED WHEN THE PROCESS SERVER ATTEMPTED SERVICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS EVADING SERVICE; THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT ATTEMPT SERVICE AT DEFENDANT’S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT; THE “NAIL AND MAIL” SERVICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “nail and mail” service of process was invalid because the process server’s affidavit did not demonstrate “due diligence” in attempting other methods of personal service:

“Service of process must be made in strict compliance with [the] statutory ‘methods for effecting personal service upon a natural person’ pursuant to CPLR 308” … . Here, the plaintiff purportedly served the defendant by the “affix and mail” method pursuant to CPLR 308(4). Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) or (2) cannot be made with “due diligence” … . “The due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4) must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be received” … .

Here, … the process server made prior attempts at personal delivery of the summons and complaint at the defendant’s residence at different times of the day between Thursday, December 21, 2017, and Friday, December 29, 2017. Although one of those times was on December 23, 2017, a Saturday, the attempts at service occurred at the height of the holiday season, when the defendant may have had reasons not to be home … . The process server noted that holiday lights were on in the windows of the residence on December 23, 2017, and that both floors of the residence were illuminated on December 26, 2017. Nevertheless, considering the holiday season, the process server’s observations were not a sufficient basis to believe that the defendant was evading service. Moreover, the process server stated that he was “unable” to speak to a neighbor regarding the defendant’s whereabouts.

In addition, in the year prior to the commencement of this action, the defendant was granted a loan modification, and as part of his application for a loan modification, the defendant was required to and did, in fact, disclose his employer and address of employment to the plaintiff. No attempts were made to serve the defendant at his place of employment. Bank of Am., N.A. v Fischer, 2023 NY Slip Op 05112, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: Here the process server’s affidavit did not demonstrate “due diligence” in attempting service at defendant’s home and there was no attempt to serve defendant at his place of employment. The “nail and mail” service was deemed invalid.

 

,

A DEFENDANT WHO MOVES TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION DOES NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DEFAULT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to vacate a default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction should not have been treated as a motion to vacate based on an excusable default. The defendant raised a question of fact about whether he was properly served by demonstrating the address at issue did not exist. There was no requirement that defendant demonstrate a reasonable excuse:

Where, as here, a defendant moves to vacate a judgment entered upon [the defendant’s] default in appearing or answering the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction [under CPLR 5015 (a) (4)], the defendant is not required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense” … . Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, it is immaterial when defendant first learned of the judgment.

With respect to the merits, defendant contended in support of his motion that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he was not properly served with the supplemental summons and amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) (see CPLR 5015 [a] [4]). “Ordinarily, the affidavit of a process server constitutes prima facie evidence that the defendant was validly served[, but] . . . a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit” … . We agree with defendant that, by submitting uncontradicted evidence that the address listed in the affidavit of service does not exist, he overcame the presumption of proper service and created “a genuine question” whether the “nail and mail” service used here was effected in accordance with the statute … . L&W Supply Corp. v Built-Rite Drywall Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 05079, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Here defendant was purportedly served by “nail and mail.” Defendant demonstrated the address in the affidavit of service did not exist. Therefore defendant was entitled to a hearing. There was no need for defendant to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default.

 

, ,

THE MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STATEMENTS MADE TO HEALTHCARE PERSONNEL AND MEDICAL RECORDS WERE RELEVANT TO LIABILITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion to bifurcate the trial (liability versus damages) in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff made statements to medical personnel which were relevant to liability:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that he allegedly sustained when he fell from an “upper patio or balcony” of an apartment building … . We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting defendants-respondents’ motion to bifurcate the trial with respect to the issues of liability and damages. “As a general rule, issues of liability and damages in a negligence action are distinct and severable issues which should be tried separately” … . Here, however, we conclude that the issue of liability is not distinct from the issue of plaintiff’s injuries because plaintiff made statements to several of his medical care providers following his fall that render the testimony of several medical witnesses as well as hospital and medical records relevant to the liability phase of the trial. Plaintiff has thus established that bifurcation would not “assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action” … .  Bogumil v Greenbaum Family Holdings, LP, 2023 NY Slip Op 05069, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: It is usual to bifurcate the liability and damages aspects of negligence trials. Here plaintiff’s statements to medical personnel and his medical records were relevant to liability as well as damages. The motion to bifurcate should not, therefore, have been granted.

 

, ,

RATHER THAN ADDRESS WHETHER THE REGULATION REQUIRING HOSPITAL PERSONNEL TO BE VACCINATED AGAINST COVID WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE, THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO APPLY THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL, FLATLY STATING THE PANDEMIC IS OVER AND IS UNLIKELY TO OCCUR AGAIN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the appeal of Supreme Court’s ruling that the regulation requiring hospitals to mandate COVID vaccines for certain personnel exceeded the state’s authority has been rendered moot. The state has repealed the regulation. The exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply:

“[A]lthough the issue of the lawfulness of the [regulation] implemented as part of the extraordinary response to the COVID-19 pandemic is substantial and novel, that issue is not likely to recur” given the once-in-a-century nature of the pandemic and the emergency governmental response thereto … . Moreover, “the issue is not of the type that typically evades review” … . Indeed, the regulation at issue here received significant review from numerous state and federal courts … . In any event, under the circumstances of this case, we would “decline to invoke the mootness exception” … . Matter of Medical Professionals for Informed Consent, Individually & On Behalf of Its Members, Kristen Robillard, M.D., Zarina Hernandez-schipplick, M.D., Margaret Florini, A.S.C.P., Olyesya Girich, Rt (r), & Elizabeth Storelli, R.N., Individually & On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v Bassett, 2023 NY Slip Op 05052, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Health care workers lost their jobs if they refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 based upon the regulation at issue here. At this writing, the COVID booster campaign continues unabated for everyone over six months of age. Yet the Fourth Department refused to consider whether the regulation was valid and enforceable, instead declaring the pandemic over and unlikely to occur again.

 

,

​ A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE OF A FORECLOSURE ACTION NO LONGER STOPS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action no longer stops the running of the statute of limitations:

… [T]he six-year statute of limitations began to run on the entire debt in July 2011, when the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest commenced the 2011 action and elected to call due the entire amount secured by the mortgage … . The instant action was commenced in October 2017, more than six years later (see CPLR 213[4] …). Under the recently enacted Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (L 2022, ch 821, § 8 [eff Dec. 30, 2022]), the voluntary discontinuance of the 2011 action did not “in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute” (CPLR 3217[e]; see CPLR 203[h] … ). Under these new legal principles, the plaintiff cannot rely upon the voluntary discontinuance of the 2011 action to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether enforcement of the mortgage loan is barred by the statute of limitations. CIT Bank, N.A. v Byers, 2023 NY Slip Op 04978, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: Pursuant to the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (2022) the bank can no longer stop the running of the statute of limitations by voluntarily discontinuing the foreclosure action.

 

, , , , ,

BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW GUARDS, THE DEFENDANT CONDOMINIUM DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTALL WINDOW GUARDS; THEREFORE THE CONDOMINIUM COULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER’S FALL FROM THE WINDOW UNDER THE FAILURE-TO-INSTALL THEORY; HOWEVER, THE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE CONDOMINIUM’S FAILURE TO GIVE PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF THE CITY’S WINDOW-GUARD REQUIREMENT SURVIVED THE DISMISSAL MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligence cause of action against the condominium (Cherry Tower) premised on the failure to install window guards should have been granted. Plaintiffs’ five-year-old daughter fell from the fifth floor window and died. Defendants submitted the deed to the condominium in support of their motion to dismiss. Because plaintiffs owned the condo unit, the defendants had no duty to install window guards. However, the cause of action alleging defendants’ failure to give notice of the window-guard requirements in the NYC Administrative Code properly survived dismissal:

“The characteristics of condominium ownership are individual ownership of a unit, an undivided interest in designated common elements, and an agreement among unit owners regulating the administration and maintenance of property” … . Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, the documentary evidence submitted by the Cherry Tower defendants, including the deed demonstrating that the unit owners purchased the subject apartment in 2007 and the condominium bylaws placing the responsibility to install and maintain window guards on the unit owners, conclusively demonstrates that the Cherry Tower defendants had no duty to install window guards in the subject apartment (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2043.1[a]; Real Property Law § 339-ee[1] …).

However, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the Cherry Tower defendants’ motion which was to dismiss so much of the complaint as was based on their failure to provide the plaintiff with notice of the window guard requirements. Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, the complaint sufficiently alleges that the Cherry Tower defendants failed in their responsibility to deliver the required notice to the subject apartment (see Administrative Code § 17-123[b]). Kwan v Kuie Chin Yap, 2023 NY Slip Op 05005, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: The individual owners of condominium units are responsible for the installation of window guards. Therefore the condominium itself has no duty to do so. However, in New York City, the condominium must provided the individual owners with notice of the window-guard requirement in the NYC Administrative Code.

 

, ,

CLAIMANT ALLEGED SHE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY TWO NAMED COUNSELORS FROM 1976 – 1978; THE CLAIM SUFFICIENTLY STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the claim sufficiently stated a Child Victims Act cause of action stemming from claimant’s time in foster care from 1976 to 1978:

In August 2021, the claimant commenced this claim pursuant to the Child Victims Act (see CPLR 214-g) against the defendant, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The claim alleged that the claimant, who had been placed in a group home for foster children when she was a child, was sexually abused by two named counselors at the facility from approximately 1976 to 1978. * * *

Court of Claims Act § 11(b) requires a claim to specify: “(1) the nature of the claim; (2) the time when it arose; (3) the place where it arose; (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained; and (5) the total sum claimed” … . These statutory requirements are “strictly construed,” and a failure to comply with any of those requirements “constitutes a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal” … . The purpose of the pleading requirements is to provide “a sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim” so that the defendant can “investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability” … . “However, absolute exactness is not required, so long as the particulars of the claim are detailed in a manner sufficient to permit investigation” … .

Contrary to the Court of Claims’ determination, the claim set forth the nature of the claim with sufficient detail to allow the defendant to investigate the claim in a prompt manner and to assess its potential liability … . Brown v State of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 04997, Second Dept 10-4-23

Practice Point: To state a cause of action pursuant to the Child Victims Act, the claim need only provide sufficient detail to allow a prompt investigation. Here the claimant alleged sexual while in foster care from 1976 – 1978 by two named counselors. The claim should not have been dismissed.

 

,

TO CONSIDER A LATE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE PARTIES MUST FIRST BE PUT ON NOTICE THE MOTION WILL BE TREATED AS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the post answer motion to dismiss should not have been heard because there was no notice the motion would be treated as a summary judgment:

By summons and complaint dated July 8, 2021, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant to recover approximately $360,000 in unpaid counsel fees. Defendant answered on or about August 18, 2021 and asserted the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. On September 1, 2022, defendant moved under CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant’s post-answer motion to dismiss was not timely (CPLR 3211 [e] …). Thus, the motion could not be properly considered unless the parties were given adequate prior notice that the motion would be treated as a motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 or unless an exception to the notice requirement applied (see CPLR 3211[c] … ). Because defendant does not argue that adequate notice was given or that an exception to the notice requirement applied, we reverse and remand for consideration after the parties are given the requisite notice …   Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP v 3 W. 16th St., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04952, First Dept 10-3-23

Practice Point: A late (post answer) motion to dismiss should not be considered unless the parties have been notified the motion will be treated as a summary judgment motion, or unless some exception to the notice requirement applies.

 

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