You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

PURCHASING AND FORECLOSING ON MORTGAGES IN NEW YORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW; THE LLC CANNOT SUE IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff limited liability company (NS194) could not sue in New York because purchasing and foreclosing on mortgages in New York does not constitute doing business in New York under the Limited Liability Company Law:

Supreme Court erred in directing plaintiff to prove NS194’s compliance with Limited Liability Company Law § 802 … . Defendants failed to rebut the presumption that NS194 was not conducting business within the state and lacked capacity to sue pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 802. Plaintiff’s conduct of purchasing and foreclosing on mortgages in New York does not constitute doing business in this state (see Limited Liability Company Law § 803[a][1] [“maintaining or defending any action or proceeding” is not “doing business in this state”] …). … ([S]ee Star201, LLC v Martinez, AD3d , 2026 NY Slip Op 02144, *2 [2d Dept Apr. 8, 2026] [“the mere maintenance of an action [for foreclosure] by a foreign corporation does not constitute doing business within the State”] …). Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. v Okoronkwo, 2026 NY Slip Op 03253, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: An LLC which purchases and forecloses on mortgages in New York is not “doing business in New York” and therefore cannot sue in New York.​

 

, ,

IF A JUDGE DIRECTS THAT A PROPOSED JUDGMENT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED ON NOTICE, THE JUDGMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS OR THE MATTER WILL BE DEEMED ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; HERE, HOWEVER, THE JUDGE DID NOT DIRECT THAT THE PROPOSED JUDGMENT BE SUBMITTED ON NOTICE, SO 22 NYCRR 202.48 AND THE 60-DAY DEADLINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs did not abandon the action by failing to submit a proposed judgment within 60 days of the inquest awarding damages to plaintiffs after defendants’ default. The 60-day deadline is only triggered when a judge directs the order to be settled or submitted on notice, not the case here:

On January 26, 2022, after an inquest, the court awarded the plaintiffs $188,560 in damages as against both defendants. The plaintiffs did not submit a proposed judgment until November 2022.

Thereafter, the defendants moved, inter alia, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 to dismiss the complaint as abandoned. In an order dated April 29, 2024, the Supreme Court … granted that branch of the motion. …

“Proposed orders or judgments, with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted” (22 NYCRR 202.48[a]; see Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 367 …). “Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown” (22 NYCRR 202.48[b]). “However, 22 NYCRR 202.48 does not apply where the court merely directs a party to submit an order or judgment without expressly directing that the order or judgment be submitted on notice” … . Here, since the Supreme Court did not direct that a judgment based on its decision after the inquest be settled or submitted on notice, the plaintiffs were not required to comply with 22 NYCRR 202.48 … . Rosenberg v Tool Time Constr. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 03192, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: If the judge does not direct that a proposed judgment be submitted on notice, 22 NYCRR 202.48, which requires that the judgment be submitted for signature within 60 days, does not apply.

 

, ,

WHERE THE STATUTORY PRECONDITIONS FOR DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (CPLR 3216) ARE NOT MET, THE COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE ACTION; RATHER, THE ACTION MUST BE RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge did not have the authority to, sua sponte, dismiss the complaint for neglect to prosecute. At the time the purported 90-day notice was issued by the judge, issue had not yet been joined. In addition, the purported 90-day notice did not include all the information required by CPLR 3216(b):

“CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with” … . “[A] court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met” … . Here, the Supreme Court was without authority to issue a 90-day notice since issue was not joined in the action … .

In addition, “[p]ursuant to CPLR 3216(b), an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him [or her] for unreasonably neglecting to proceed” … . Here, there is no evidence in the record that the plaintiff was served with a written demand as required by CPLR 3216. Moreover, the conditional order of dismissal, which, in effect, served as a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, was defective in that it did not state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the demand would serve as a basis for the Supreme Court, on its own motion, to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute … . Further, the record demonstrates that no such motion was ever made, nor was there entry of an order of dismissal. Therefore, the action should have been restored to the active calendar without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the conditional order of dismissal … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Poyer, 2026 NY Slip Op 03145, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: An action cannot be dismissed by a judge, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute if (1) issue had not yet been joined, or (2) if all the statutory preconditions for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216 have not been met. Rather, the action must be restored to the active calendar.

 

, ,

THE JURY RENDERED A VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, FINDING THAT DEFENDANT UNDULY INFLUENCED DECEDENT TO NAME HIM AS THE SOLE BENEFICIARY OF TWO BROKERAGE ACCOUNTS; THE CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE PROOF OF UNDUE INFLUENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE VERDICT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 4401) dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant unduly influenced the decedent to remove plaintiff as a beneficiary of two brokerage accounts and name defendant as the sole beneficiary. The court explained the shifting burdens of proof:

“‘A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party'” … . “In determining whether the defendant has met this burden, a court must accept the plaintiff’s evidence as true and accord the plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence presented at trial” … .

“Generally, the burden of proving undue influence rests with the party asserting its existence” … . “Where, however, the existence of a confidential relationship is established, the burden shifts to the beneficiary of the transaction to show that the transaction is fair and free from undue influence” … . “‘In order to demonstrate the existence of a confidential relationship, there must be evidence of circumstances that demonstrate inequality or a controlling influence'” … .

… [T]he plaintiff did not establish that a confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the defendant … . * * *

As a result, the burden of proving undue influence remained upon the plaintiff … . * * *

… [P]laintiff presented only conclusory and speculative evidence that the defendant exercised undue influence over the decedent … . “‘[A] mere showing of opportunity and even of a motive to exercise undue influence does not justify a submission of that issue to the jury, unless there is in addition evidence that such influence was actually utilized'” … . Collins v Denaro, 2026 NY Slip Op 03142, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into  the shifting burdens of proof applied to a motion for a judgment as a matter of law made by a defendant after a plaintiff’s verdict. Here the appellate court determined the conclusory and speculative evidence did not support the jury’s verdict.

 

, ,

THIS LAWSUIT BY A PENNSYLVANIA PENSION FUND AGAINST A LONDON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY TRIGGERED THE APPLICATION OF NEW YORK’S CONFLICT-OF-LAW RULES (“PROCEDURAL” VS “SUBSTANTIVE”) AND THE “FORUM NON CONVENIENS” DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, applying conflict-of-law rules, determined the complaint in this shareholder derivative action should not have been dismissed based on plaintiff’s lack of standing. But the complaint should have been conditionally dismissed on “forum non conveniens” grounds:

The plaintiff commenced this shareholder derivative action in the Supreme Court, Nassau County. The plaintiff, the trustee of a Pennsylvania pension fund, is a shareholder in the nominal defendant Standard Chartered PLC (hereinafter SC). SC is a multinational banking and financial services company. SC is publicly owned, is registered and organized under the laws of England and Wales, and is headquartered in London. The nominal defendant Standard Chartered Holdings, Ltd. (hereinafter SC Holdings) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SC. Nonparty Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter SC Bank) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SC Holdings. SC Bank, an international bank, is licensed to operate a foreign bank branch in New York. * * *

Since the procedural law of the forum typically applies under our conflict-of-law rules, the plaintiff’s failure to commence the action in England and Wales or Northern Ireland does not bar it from relying on the UK Companies Act to establish derivative standing in New York … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff is the trustee of a Pennsylvania pension fund, and SC is registered and organized under the laws of England and Wales and is headquartered in London. None of the individual defendants reside in New York. Further, the central actionable events transpired in the United Kingdom, where SC’s directors and officers held their meetings. Although the plaintiff contends that SC presided over a money laundering scheme centered on SC Bank’s New York branch, its derivative claims center on management decisions made in the United Kingdom … . Further, it is undisputed that English substantive law governs the plaintiff’s claims. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have conditionally granted SC’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 327 on the ground of forum non conveniens, as the burden which would be imposed upon the courts of this State if this action was retained would be substantial … . City of Philadelphia Bd. of Pensions & Retirement v Winters, 2026 NY Slip Op 03141, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of New York’s conflict-of-laws rules and the “forum non conveniens” doctrine in a lawsuit brought in New York by a Pennsylvanian pension fund against a London banking and financial services company.

 

, , ,

AN IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL PRIORITY ISSUES RAISED IN A CUSTODY MATTER REGARDING A NAVAJO CHILD, BORN TO A NAVAJO MOTHER IN NEW MEXICO, LIVING ON THE NAVAJO NATION RESERVATION IN UTAH, WITH FATHER RESIDING IN NEW YORK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, grappled with the complex procedural and jurisdictional issues surrounding the custody of a Navajo child, born in New Mexico to a Navajo mother, living on the Navajo Nation reservation in Utah, and residing with father in New York. The issue is jurisdictional priority at the convergence of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The opinion is far too complex to summarize here.  Matter of Kody II. v Shaunta JJ., 2026 NY Slip Op 03044, Third Dept 5-14-26

 

,

HERE THE “RENEWED” SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE WHICH WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE FIRST MOTION; THE “RENEWED” MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s renewed motion for summary judgment should not have been granted; it was based on evidence which was available for the first motion:

… “[S]uccessive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained without a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient justification” … . In support of the renewed motion for summary judgment, plaintiff presented an affirmation from Joseph DeCiutiis, a senior vice president at a title insurance company who represented that his company had determined that a secretary certificate of authority for the sale of the subject real property was “insurable authorization for the sale.” While the DeCiutiis affirmation is dispositive of the issue of fact identified by this Court in Apple Bank I with respect to plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment, plaintiff offers no reason why it could not have obtained a similar affirmation in support of its first summary judgment motion. Such evidence “was clearly available to [plaintiff] earlier, and thus should be rejected for failure to show due diligence in attempting to obtain the statement before the submission of the prior motion” … .  Apple Bank for Sav. v Prime Rok Real Estate LLC., 2026 NY Slip Op 03057, First Dept 5-14-26

Practice Point: A “successive” summary judgment motion which is based on evidence which could have been included in the initial motion will be denied.

 

, , ,

THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS DURING THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS RENDERED THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE, WHICH INCLUDED A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DECEASED DEFENDANT, A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judgment of foreclosure was a nullity and the court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because one of the defendants died during the proceedings:

“‘Generally, the death of a party divests a court of jurisdiction to act, and automatically stays proceedings in the action pending the substitution of a personal representative for the decedent'” … . Ordinarily, any determination rendered without such a substitution is deemed a nullity … . However, under certain circumstances, where a party’s death does not affect the merits of a case, this Court has found that there is no need for strict adherence to the requirement that the proceedings be stayed pending substitution … .

Here, the record demonstrates that as of July 2021, the plaintiff and the Supreme Court were on notice that [defendant] Trevor P. Williams had died. Nevertheless, the proceedings continued after that date, and in March 2022, the court issued the subject order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, which contains a deficiency provision applicable to Trevor P. Williams.

Given the deficiency provision contained in the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, the demise of Trevor P. Williams affects the merits of the case … . The contention of nonparty U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., that it waived the right to seek a deficiency against Trevor P. Williams is based on evidence dehors the record and, therefore, is not properly considered on this appeal … . Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, since a proper substitution was not made as required by CPLR 1015(a), the Supreme Court was without jurisdiction, inter alia, to issue the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale. Accordingly, the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale appealed from is a nullity and must be vacated and the appeal must be dismissed, as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal . Champion Mtge. v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 02960, Second Dept 5-13-28

Practice Point: If the death of a party doesn’t affect the merits of the case, sometimes the need to stay the proceeding and substitute a personal representative can be overlooked. Here, however, the judgment of foreclosure included a deficiency judgment against the deceased defendant. Therefore the death affected the merits and the proceedings were rendered a nullity.​

 

, ,

BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT DID NOT DECIDE A MOTION MADE ON NOTICE, THE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT; THEREFORE, A MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPRL 2221(A) IS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal order in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The order dismissing the complaint was not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice. Therefore a motion to vacate the dismissal pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) was proper and should have been granted:

The Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar. A motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) is not subject to any specific time limitation … . Where, as here, an order directing dismissal of a complaint is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice, it is procedurally proper for the aggrieved party to move pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate that order … .

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed” … . Here, CPLR 3215(c) is not applicable to the defendant under the circumstances of this case, as she appeared in the action by answer … . “Further, this action does not present an extraordinary circumstance as would warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint” … . US Bank N.A. v Jones-Boakai, 2026 NY Slip Op 03019, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: If an order dismissing a complaint is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice, a motion to vacate the dismissal pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) is proper.​

 

,

THE ONLY ACTION PLAINTIFF TOOK WITHIN A YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE WAS TO REQUEST A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; BUT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT RESIDE AT THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE; SINCE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN TO ENTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR, THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment within one year requiring dismissal of the complaint. Although plaintiff did request a settlement conference within one year, the settlement conference was not required because the defendant did not reside at the property subject to foreclosure:

… [P]laintiff had one year from July 17, 2012, to take proceedings for the entry of judgment against the defendant (see CPLR 3215[c] …). However, the plaintiff did not take such proceedings until over two years later, when it moved, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference in March 2015. Thus, the plaintiff failed to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the defendant’s default. Although the plaintiff filed a request for judicial intervention requesting a foreclosure settlement conference within the one-year period after the defendant’s default, a settlement conference was not required in this case because the defendant did not reside at the property subject to foreclosure (see CPLR 3408[a][1]). As such, the filing of the request for judicial intervention did not constitute the taking of proceedings for the entry of a judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) and did not toll the one-year deadline to do so … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Islam, 2026 NY Slip Op 03015, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Requesting a settlement conference which is not required does not toll the one-year period for taking proceedings to enter a default judgment in a foreclosure action.

 

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