You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

HERE IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE JUDGE LAID OUT THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT DEMONSTRATING A NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE AND IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE PLAINTIFF WAS AFFORDED NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO DISMISSAL FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined compliance with the “specific conduct” and “notice” requirements of CPLR 3216 had not been demonstrated. Therefore, he motion to dismiss for neglect to prosecute should not have been granted:

Effective January 1, 2015, the legislature amended, in several significant respects, the statutory preconditions to dismissal under CPLR 3216″ … . One such precondition is that where a written demand to resume prosecution of the action is made by the court, as here, “the demand shall set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” (CPLR 3216[b][3] …). Here, the certification order is not included in the record, and, accordingly, this Court cannot make a determination as to whether that order set forth the information required by the statute.

… [A]nother precondition to dismissal is that where the court, on its own initiative, seeks to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216, it must first give the parties notice of its intention to do so (see id. § 3216[a] …). Such notice is meant to provide the parties with an opportunity to be heard prior to the issuance of an order directing dismissal of the complaint … . Designer Limousine, Inc. v Authority Transp., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03767, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: In order for a dismissal for neglect to prosecute to hold up on appeal, the judge’s strict compliance with CPLR 3216 must be demonstrated. Here it was not demonstrated that the judge laid out the specific conduct justifying dismissal and it was not demonstrate plaintiff was afforded notice and an opportunity to respond.

 

,

IF THE JUDGE DOES NOT LAY OUT IN DETAIL THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT JUSTIFYING A DISMISSAL OF AN ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 ARE NOT MET AND THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR THE FILING OF ANOTHER COMPLAINT (CPLR 205(A)) IS AVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the requirements for dismissing the first complaint for neglect to prosecute were not met. Therefore the six-month extension of the statute of limitations applied and the second complaint was not time-barred:

… [T]he complaint in the prior action was not dismissed for “neglect to prosecute” within the meaning of CPLR 205(a). “Where a dismissal is one for neglect to prosecute the action made pursuant to [CPLR 3216] or otherwise, the judge shall set forth on the record the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … . Although the court set forth on the record that the plaintiff failed to appear for a single conference and failed to supply an effective authorization for certain relevant medical records, such conduct did not demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation … . The court’s conclusory statements, to the effect that the plaintiff had engaged in a general pattern of delay, do not satisfy the statutory requirements that a court set forth on the record the “specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation”… .

Thus, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the six-month extension afforded by CPLR 205(a) was applicable, and the instant action was timely commenced within six months of the termination of the prior action. Crudele v Price, 2023 NY Slip Op 03765, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Pont: The statutory requirements in CPLR 3216 for dismissal for neglect to prosecute are strictly enforced by appellate courts. Here the motion court did not lay out the “specific conduct” justifying dismissal for failure to prosecute. Therefore the six-month extension for filing a second complaint pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) was available to the plaintiff.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED RUNNING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS FIRST BROUGHT, THE SUBSEQUENT LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT, ENTERED WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS STILL PENDING, STARTED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNNING ANEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the six-year statute of limitations for the original foreclosure action had run, the loan modification agreement, which was entered after the foreclosure action was started and while it was still pending, restarted the statute of limitations:

RPAPL 1501(4) provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]here the period allowed by the applicable statute of limitation for the commencement of an action to foreclose a mortgage . . . has expired, any person having an estate or interest in the real property subject to such encumbrance may maintain an action . . . to secure the cancellation and discharge of record of such encumbrance.” Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-105, however, “a promise to pay the mortgage debt, if made after the accrual of a right of action to foreclose the mortgage . . . by the express terms of a writing signed by the party to be charged is effective . . . to make the time limited for commencement of the action run from the date of the . . . promise”… .  14 Fillm Corp. v Mid-Island Mtge. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03759, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: Even if a foreclosure had been filed, starting the running of the statute of limitations, a loan modification agreement entered while the the foreclosure action was pending starts the running of the statute of limitations all over again.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ALLOW THE EX PARTE INTERVIEW OF THE NONPARTY TREATING PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, in a matter of first impression, determined defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to authorize an ex parte interview of the nonparty physician’s assistant (Molina) who treated plaintiff after her slip and fall was properly denied. Defendants sought to interview Molina about plaintiff’s statement concerning the cause of her fall, not about her medical treatment. The Second Department reasoned that allowing questions about the cause of the fall would constitute an improper expansion of the Court of Appeals ruling in Arons v Jutkowitz, 9 NY3d 393:

The Court of Appeals in Arons v Jutkowitz did not explicitly address the issue involved in this case, where the defendants’ counsel intends to interview a physician assistant about the reason that the plaintiff tripped, rather than about the plaintiff’s injury or her medical condition. Instead, the Court of Appeals’ decision in Arons v Jutkowitz distinguished between information about a medical condition that a plaintiff has placed in issue by commencing the action and information about other unrelated medical conditions which would still be protected under HIPAA. Furthermore, Arons v Jutkowitz involved three separate actions, all of which concerned allegations of medical malpractice, where causation is related to and intertwined with the issues of the patient’s medical condition and treatment … . Because the Court of Appeals did not explicitly rule on whether an Arons authorization would apply to information about causation and liability, where, as here, the plaintiff’s alleged injury was not caused by medical treatment but instead was caused by a trip and fall accident, granting the subject branch of the defendants’ motion would result in an extension of the scope of Arons. Yan v Kalikow Mgt., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03817, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: Under Arons v Jutdowitz, 9 NY3d 292, a defendant in a personal injury case may be given permission to interview nonparty medical personnel about medical conditions plaintiff has put in controversy, as opposed to medical conditions protected by HIPAA. Here defendants sought to extend that ruling to compel plaintiff to allow an ex parte interview of the treating physician’s assistant concerning plaintiff’s statements about the cause of her slip and fall. The Second Department refused to so extend the Arons ruling.

 

, , ,

A LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGES CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE DAMAGES WILL BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the legal malpractice complaint did not state a cause of action and should have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a). Conclusory and speculative allegations of damages are not sufficient:

“‘To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession; and (2) that the attorney’s breach of the duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages'” … . “To establish causation in a legal malpractice action, ‘a plaintiff must show that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the lawyer’s negligence'” … . “‘Conclusory allegations of damages or injuries predicated on speculation cannot suffice for a malpractice action, and dismissal is warranted where the allegations in the complaint are merely conclusory and speculative'” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice because the plaintiff’s allegation that the restaurant would have had increased profits but for the defendants’ alleged malpractice is conclusory and speculative … . 126 Main St., LLC v Kriegsman, 2023 NY Slip Op 03758, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: A legal malpractice complaint does not state a cause of action if the damages allegations and conclusory are speculative.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED TIME FOR OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW THE NEGLECT PETITION AND CANCEL THE FACT-FINDING HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have granted petitioner’s request to withdraw the neglect petition and cancel the fact-finding hearing without allowing time for objections to be raised:

We agree with the AFC that Family Court erred in granting petitioner’s application to dismiss the neglect petition without allowing any time for objections to be raised. We are cognizant that, “ordinarily[,] a party cannot be compelled to litigate and, absent special circumstances, discontinuance should be granted” … . However, one should be given an opportunity to present any such special circumstances or any other arguments concerning the application, such as the effect upon a subject child’s welfare … , whether prejudice should attach to the discontinuance … or whether another party should be permitted, in the court’s discretion, to commence a neglect proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 1032 [b] …). Because Family Court dismissed the petition without allowing the parties — including the father as a nonrespondent parent — to present any arguments regarding petitioner’s application for a discontinuance, we remit this matter to allow them the opportunity to do so. Matter of Lauren X. (Daughn X.), 2023 NY Slip Op 03732, Third Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: Although a party’s application to discontinue an action, here a neglect petition, should ordinarily be granted, here the judge should have allowed time for objections before granting the application.

 

, , , , ,

LAWYERS FOR CHILDREN, WHICH IS CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE ATTORNEYS IN CHILD WELFARE MATTERS, HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE HOST FAMILY HOMES PROGRAM WHICH PLACES CHILDREN WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF ATTORNEYS (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department reversing Supreme Court, determined Lawyers for Children, which provides attorneys for child welfare matters, had standing to bring a petition challenging the Host Family Homes program which facilitates temporary placement of children in foster care without an attorney. 

… [P]ursuant to Social Services Law § 358-a (6), Family Court is tasked with appointing an attorney for the children should there be a hearing before it. Petitioner Lawyers for Children had initially contracted with the Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA) respecting voluntary foster care placements and, since the legislative changes in 1999, has consistently represented children in New York City who have been voluntarily placed outside of the home. Similarly, petitioner Legal Aid Society contracted with OCA and receives assignments through New York City Family Court. Petitioner Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., likewise, has contracted with OCA and receives funding to represent children in child welfare matters.

In December 2021, respondent Office of Children and Family Services (hereinafter OCFS) promulgated regulations creating the Host Family Homes program, a system for the temporary care of children by pre-vetted volunteers without resorting to the voluntary placement process in the Social Services Law … . * * * Children cared for by a host family under this program were not entitled to assigned counsel, although they could communicate with an attorney … . * * *

… [P]etitioners sufficiently alleged an injury in fact that is not merely conjectural, as implementation of the program would, in essence, place children outside their home without the right to legal representation to which they would be entitled by Social Services Law § 358-a and that petitioners have a contractual obligation to provide … . Matter of Lawyers for Children v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2023 NY Slip Op 03747, Third Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: Lawyers for Children is contractually obligated to provide attorneys in child welfare matters. Lawyer for Children has standing to challenge the Host Family Homes program which places children in foster care without the participation of attorneys.

 

, , , , ,

THE AFFIDAVITS AND REAL ESTATE CONTRACT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATIONS OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging unlawful discrimination in a real estate deal should not have been dismissed because the documentary evidence did not utterly refute the allegations in the complaint. After the real estate purchase offer was signed by both parties and the down payment was made, defendant’s attorney returned the down payment check with a letter saying that the defendant was no longer interested in selling to the plaintiff:

Here, neither the affidavits submitted in support of the defendant’s motion nor the purported contract between the defendant and another purchaser constituted documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … , and the defendant’s evidentiary submissions were “insufficient to utterly refute the plaintiff’s factual allegations” … . Moreover, accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action alleging unlawful discrimination pursuant to Administrative Code § 8-107(5). Jeffrey v Collins, 2023 NY Slip Op 03686, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: The affidavits and real estate contract submitted in support of the motion to dismiss did not utterly refute the allegations in the complaint and therefore did not support dismissal of the complaint based on documentary evidence.

 

,

THE VOTERS WHOSE ABSENTEE BALLOTS WERE CHALLENGED ON RESIDENCY GROUNDS ARE NECESSARY PARTIES WHO WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PROCEEDING; THE ELECTION LAW PROCEDURES FOR CHALLENGING THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS WERE NOT FOLLOWED; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the voters whose absentee ballots were unsuccessfully challenged on the ground the voters did not meet the village-residency-requirements were necessary parties in this proceeding and the matter had to be remitted to add them and consider whether their absentee ballots are valid:

Viewing Election Law § 5-220 (2) together with Election Law § 9-209, there is no statutory authority, under the circumstances here, permitting a challenge by petitioners to the absentee ballots submitted by the challenged voters. In view of the statutory scheme, the only opportunity for an objection to be lodged during the post-election review of an absentee ballot is after such ballot has been deemed invalid following a review under Election Law § 9-209 (8) (e), which presupposes an initial review under Election Law § 9-209 (2). … [T]he improper registration of a voter is not one of the explicit grounds used to deem an absentee ballot invalid upon the initial review. Even assuming it was a ground, there is still no indication in the record that any review under Election Law § 9-209 (2) has occurred or, more importantly, that any determination under Election Law § 9-209 (8) (e) has been made here by the canvassing authority as to the invalidity of any absentee ballots and that such determination has been objected to — i.e., the statutory predicate for judicial review (see Election Law § 9-209 [8] [e]). There is likewise no explicit authority within Election Law § 9-209 permitting a court to either conduct that review or make that determination in the first instance. Matter of Hughes v Delaware County Bd. of Elections, 2023 NY Slip Op 03431, Third Dept 6-26-23

Practice Point: When absentee ballots are challenged, the voters who submitted the ballots are necessary parties.

Practice Point: Any challenge to absentee ballots must be made in accordance with the procedures described in the Election Law, not the case here.

 

, ,

HERE THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NON-SIGNATORY AND THE PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT WARRANTED FINDING THAT THE NON-SIGNATORY WAS BOUND BY THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, after reinstating the tortious interference with contract cause of action, determined a non-signatory can be bound by a forum selection clause under the “closely related” doctrine. where the non-signatory and the party to the agreement have such a close relationship that it is foreseeable the forum selection clause will be enforced against the non-signatory:

We find that plaintiff alleged a sufficiently close relationship between Vivendi and the Editis Defendants to justify subjecting it to personal jurisdiction in New York … .  Plaintiff alleged that Editis … was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vivendi, that Vivendi’s CEO was also the Chairman of Editis, and that Vivendi managed the Editis Defendants’ performance of the subject agreement …. . EPAC Tech. Ltd. v Interforum S.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 03543, First Dept 6-29-23

Practice Point: Here the “close relationship” doctrine warranted finding the non-signatory was bound by the forum selection clause in the agreement. The non-signatory was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the party to the agreement and the non-signatory’s CEO was the chairman of the party to the agreement.

 

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