You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS HIRED BY THE CITY TO INSTALL A SEWER AND DISCOVERED 45,000 TONS OF CONTAMINATED SOIL; DEFENDANT, WHO CAUSED THE CONTAMINATION, REFUSED TO REMEDIATE; PLAINTIFF, WHO REMEDIATED THE CONTAMINATION, STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the unjust-enrichment cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was hired by the city to install a sewer. Plaintiff discovered 45,000 tons of contaminated soil in the process. Defendant, who was responsible for the contamination, refused to remediate. Plaintiff remediated the contamination and sued defendant for the cost. There was no contract between plaintiff and defendant, so the breach of contract action was properly dismissed. However, the complaint stated a cause of action for unjust enrichment:

“To recover under a theory of unjust enrichment, a litigant must show that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit [the other party] to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . “‘[T]he essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment . . . is whether it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered'” … . “Although privity is not required for an unjust enrichment claim, a claim will not be supported if the connection between the parties is too attenuated” … .

Here, affording the complaint a liberal construction, we find that it sufficiently alleged that the defendant was unjustly enriched, at the plaintiff’s expense, by the plaintiff’s remediation of the contaminated soil, and that it would be against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what was sought to be recovered … . Bedford-Carp Constr., Inc. v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 04566, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: When there is no contract between the parties, the unjust-enrichment theory may be viable, as it was in this case.

 

, , ,

THE LETTER OF INTENT WAS NOT A BINDING REAL ESTATE CONTRACT; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT, BASED ON “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE,” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letter of intent was a non-binding agreement-to-agree, not a contract for the sale of real property. The letter of intent constituted “documentary evidence” which warranted dismissal of the breach of contract action:

… [T]he defendant submitted the letter of intent which conclusively established that the parties did not enter into a binding contract, but instead had a mere agreement to agree … . The letter of intent expressly stated that the letter was not contractually binding and expressly anticipated the future preparation and execution of a contract. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted dismissal of so much of the complaint as was predicated upon allegations of breach of contract pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1). Krasnow v Catania, 2023 NY Slip Op 04584, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: This is a rare example of a successful motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence. The letter of intent was, by its terms, not a binding contract. Therefore the breach of contract action, based upon the letter of intent, should have been dismissed.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE; THE INFORMATION MAY BE RELEVANT TO LIFE AND/OR WORK-LIFE EXPECTANCY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in this construction accident case, determined defendant’s were entitled to compel plaintiff to answer deposition questions about his alcohol and drug use:

“Although physician-patient communications are privileged under CPLR 4504, a plaintiff in a personal injury action will be deemed to have waived the privilege when he or she has affirmatively placed his or her mental or physical condition in issue” … .

Here, the plaintiff asserted … damages claims for future economic loss, including loss of future wages, pension, annuity, and health insurance coverage, based upon certain work-life and life expectancy ages. These claims affirmatively placed at issue the plaintiff’s health and ability to work, and the plaintiff’s work-life expectancy … . In making life expectancy determinations in the course of awarding damages for future lost earnings, juries are permitted to make life expectancy determinations based upon statistical life expectancy tables, together with their own experience and the evidence they have heard in determining what the plaintiff’s life and/or work-life expectancy is, based upon the plaintiff’s health, life habits, employment, and activities … . Hogdahl v LCOR 55 Bank St., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04582, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: In a personal injury case, evidence of plaintiff’s drug and alcohol use may be relevant to life and work-life expectancy (damages).

 

, , , , ,

THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED THE COUNTY’S NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF WHILE SHE WAS IN FOSTER CARE; THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO SOCIAL SERVICES LAW 419 IS NOT APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the complaint adequately alleged the defendant county knew or should have known of plaintiff’s foster father’s propensity to commit child abuse. The qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law 419 does not apply to negligent supervision of children in foster care:

“[C]ounties and foster care agencies may be sued to recover damages for negligence in the selection of foster parents and in supervision of the foster home” … . “In order to find that a child care agency breached its duty to adequately supervise the children entrusted to its care, a plaintiff must establish that the agency had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … .

Here, the complaint, which asserted that the abuse was foreseeable, inter alia, because the County knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the foster father’s propensity to engage in the sexual abuse of children, sufficiently alleged that the County had notice of the dangerous conduct at issue such that the abuse could reasonably have been anticipated … . Moreover, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the County was negligent in failing to ensure that proper safeguards were in place so as to ensure the safety of the plaintiff in the foster home … .

… [T]he County was not entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law § 419, as qualified immunity does not bar recovery for the negligent supervision of children in foster care … . Grabowski v Orange County, 2023 NY Slip Op 04580, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: In this Child Victim’s Act case, the complaint adequately alleged the county knew or should have known of her foster father’s propensity to commit child abuse. The qualified immunity in Social Services Law 419 does not apply to negligent supervision of children in foster care.

 

, , ,

FAILURE TO UPDATE THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV) DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, ESTOP THE DEFENDANT FROM CONTESTING SERVICE OF PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Warhit, reversing Supreme Court, after reviewing the caselaw in the state, determined the defendant was not estopped from contesting service of process based solely on his failure to update his address with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law 505 (5). Although the failure to update the address is a factor in determining whether estoppel applies, it cannot be the sole basis for estoppel. Here the defendant presented detailed evidence demonstrating that he no longer lived at the address on file with the DMV and there was no evidence he was deliberately evading service. Therefore a hearing on whether defendant was properly served was required:

The principal question presented on this appeal is whether an individual defendant’s failure to fulfill the statutory obligation to timely notify the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter DMV) of a change of address, standing alone, estops that defendant from contesting service of the summons and complaint made at his or her former address. We answer that question in the negative. … [W]e hold that, while there are circumstances where a defendant may be estopped from contesting service of process based in part on the failure to update his or her address with the DMV, such as where the defendant engages in a deliberate attempt to avoid service, the mere failure to update one’s address with the DMV, standing alone, does not automatically warrant application of the estoppel doctrine. Castillo-Florez v Charlecius, 2023 NY Slip Op 04570, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: Although the failure to update one’s address on file with the DMV can be a factor in determining whether a defendant should be estopped from contesting service of process, it cannot be the sole reason for applying the estoppel doctrine. There must be other evidence of a deliberate effort to evade service.

 

, , , ,

THE SORA RISK-LEVEL MOTION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RE-OPENED THE HEARING TO AMEND ITS ORIGINAL RISK-LEVEL DETERMINATION; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET; THE “INHERENT AUTHORITY” TO RE-OPEN APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE ORIGINAL RULING WAS BASED ON A MISTAKE; THE PEOPLE WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the SORA court should not have reopened the SORA risk-level hearing to amend its prior risk-level ruling. The criteria for a motion to renew were not met and the other justifications for re-opening the hearing were not applicable:

… [T]here are three ways in which a court could amend its SORA determination…. First, a party may move for leave to renew. A court may grant a motion for leave to renew only where (1) the motion alleges new facts and (2) the movant provides reasonable justification for not offering those facts in the original proceedings (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; …). The court has discretion to determine what constitutes a reasonable justification … and to relax the requirements of CPLR 2221(e) in the interest of justice … . * * *

Second, a court has an inherent authority to reopen a hearing “to correct its own order to rectify a mistake of law or fact” on a SORA decision … . This inherent authority stems from the “overriding purposes and objectives of SORA” to, inter alia, “protect [] vulnerable populations and . . . the public from potential harm” …. .

Here, the motion court could not have acted based on its inherent authority because the motion court did not make a mistake in its initial decision … . * * *

Third, a new hearing can be ordered to give the People an opportunity to make an application for an upward modification where the People refrained from making that argument when the motion court assessed points which resulted in the defendant being assigned presumptively to the level sought by the People … . * * *

Here, the motion court properly gave the People time to respond to defendant’s assertions and the People chose to introduce the new materials only belatedly.  People v Adams, 2023 NY Slip Op 04490, First Dept 9-7-23

Practice Point: The three ways a SORA motion court can amend a risk-level determination are described in detail. None were applicable here.

 

, , ,

THE CRITERIA FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION BASED UPON A TORT COMMITTED “WITHIN THE STATE” CLARIFIED; NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE OUT-OF-STATE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, MEMBERS OF AN LLC WHICH SOLD N95 MASKS TO THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF; IT WAS ALLEGED THE QUALITY OF THE MASKS WAS MISREPRESENTED IN AN EMAIL TO THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt-Burke, determined New York did not have long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state individual defendants based upon an alleged misrepresentation in an email sent by defendants as principals of defendant LLC (RPP)  to the New York plaintiff. RPP sold N95 masks to plaintiff. A picture of a mask sent in the email had the FDA-approval logo on the packaging. Plaintiff alleged the masks actually shipped were not FDA approved:

This appeal presents the opportunity to reaffirm this Court’s position on what constitutes a tort committed within the boundaries of this state for purposes of New York’s long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(2). … [W]e find that the language “within the state” in CPLR 302(a)(2), means that a nondomiciliary is only subject to New York’s long-arm jurisdiction under subsection (a)(2) when they have committed a tortious act, in person or through an agent, while physically present within the boundaries of this state. * * *

… [I]t is undisputed that the alleged fraudulent statements were made outside of New York and that the individual defendants communicated with plaintiff solely in their capacity as principals of RPP. Therefore, we find that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a basis for imposing long-arm jurisdiction over the individual defendants pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(2), and the motion court should have granted the individual defendants’ motion to vacate the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) and dismissed the cause of action as against them pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8). In light of our determination, we need not reach the issue of whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process or whether a discretionary vacatur was warranted as it relates to the individual defendants. SOS Capital v Recycling Paper Partners of PA, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04480, First Dept 8-31-23

Practice Point: Here the criteria for long-arm jurisdiction based upon a tort committed in New York were clarified by the First Department.

 

,

THE COVID STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLL FROM MARCH TO NOVEMBER 2020 DID NOT ONLY APPLY TO ACTIONS WHOSE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED DURING THAT PERIOD; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the COVID toll of the statute of limitations rendered plaintiff’s negligence action timely, noting that the toll did not apply only to statutes of limitations which expired during the toll period:

Pursuant to CPLR 214(5), an action to recover damages for personal injuries is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. In Brash v Richards, this Court held that the executive orders “constitute a toll” of the filing deadlines applicable to litigation in New York courts (Brash v Richards, 195 AD3d 582, 582 … ). … [T]his toll of the statute of limitations did not only apply to statutes of limitations that expired between March 20, 2020, and November 3, 2020 … .

… [D]ue to the tolling provision of the executive orders, the statute of limitations within which the plaintiff was required to commence this action was tolled between March 20, 2020, and November 3, 2020 …  Thus, this action … was commenced against those defendants well within the statute of limitations. Williams v Ideal Food Basket, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04436, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: The COVID toll of the statute of limitations from March to November 2020 applies to all actions, not only those whose statutes of limitations expired during that period of time.

Similar issue and result in Baker v 40 Wall St. Holdings Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 0179, Second Dept 4-3-24.

 

, ,

THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS; THE AFFIFAVITS WERE NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY MATERIAL FACT ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS WAS NOT “A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, and the motion to treat the dismissal motion as a summary judgment motion should not have been granted. The motion should not have been treated as a summary judgment motion because it was premature. The motion should not have been granted as a dismissal based on documentary evidence because the affidavits submitted by the defendants do not constitute “documentary evidence” within the meaning of the CPLR:

The record demonstrates that the defendants’ pre-answer motion was made less than two months after the action was commenced, and that the plaintiff has had no opportunity to conduct discovery. Further, the defendants seek summary dismissal on the basis of facts asserted in their affidavits about which the plaintiff has no personal knowledge. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is correct that a summary judgment motion would be premature … . Therefore, the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) should not have been converted into a motion for summary judgment … . * * *

“While a court is permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no cause of action” …  by showing that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff “is not a fact at all” and that “no significant dispute exists regarding it” … . * * *

The affidavits submitted by the defendants, which merely contained conclusory denials of the facts asserted by the plaintiff in the complaint, as well as bare factual assertions regarding their use and occupancy of the subject premises, did not demonstrate that “a material fact as claimed by the [plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all” and that “no significant dispute exists regarding it” … . Russo v Crisona, 2023 NY Slip Op 04438, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: Although a pre-answer motion to dismiss can be converted to a motion for summary judgment, to do so here was premature. Affidavits generally will not be enough to warrant granting a motion to dismiss. Affidavits are not “documentary evidence.”

 

, ,

THE BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the bank’s failure to comply with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 can be raised as a defense at any time before the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Here the defense was raised in opposition to the bank’s motion to confirm the referee’s report:

… “[F]ailure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is a defense that may be raised at any time prior to the entry of judgment of foreclosure and sale” … and thus, the defendants properly raised it in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale.

“Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … . RPAPL 1304 requires that the notice be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower … .

… The affidavit of Brittany Wilson, an officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. … , the servicing agent of the plaintiff, was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304. While Wilson attested that she was familiar with Wells Fargo’s records and record-keeping practices and that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304 by mailing the required notices, which were attached to her affidavit, she failed to attest that she personally mailed the notices or that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Wells Fargo. Therefore, the plaintiff “failed to establish proof of standard office practice and procedures designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Valencia, 2023 NY Slip Op 04426, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: The bank’s failure to demonstrate compliance with the notice of foreclosure requirements of RPAPL 1304 can be raised at any time before the judgment of foreclosure and sale.

 

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