You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

THE TENANT MADE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO CURE THE DEFAULTS CITED BY THE LANDLORD AND WAS ENTITLED TO A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION TOLLING TENANT’S TIME TO CURE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gonzalez, determined the tenant liquor-store had made good faith efforts to cure the defaults cited by the landlord and was entitled to a Yellowstone injunction tolling the tenant’s time to cure the defaults. The opinion lays out the fact in a level of detail which cannot be fairly summarized here:

In keeping with public policy against forfeiture, courts grant Yellowstone relief on “far less than the normal showing required for preliminary injunctive relief” … . The tenant need only demonstrate that (1) it holds a lease; (2) it received a notice of default, notice to cure, or threat to terminate the lease; (3) it requested injunctive relief prior to the termination of the lease or expiration of the cure period; and (4) it is prepared to cure the alleged default by any means short of vacating the premises … ,. Once the tenant establishes these elements, the motion court may exercise its discretion to issue a Yellowstone injunction tolling the tenant’s time to cure … . Elite Wine & Spirit LLC v Michelangelo Preserv. LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00631, First Dept 2-7-23

Practice Point: If a tenant has made good faith efforts to cure the defaults cited by the landlord, a court may grant the tenant a Yellowstone injunction tolling the tenant’s time for curing the defaults. The Yellowstone criteria are laid out in the opinion.

 

, , ,

THE REVIVED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR LAWSUITS ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Bannister, determined the revived statute of limitations for law suits based upon sexual abuse under the Child Victims Act (CVA) did not violate due process:

… [I]t is well settled that “a claim-revival statute will satisfy the Due Process Clause of the [New York] State Constitution if it was enacted as a reasonable response in order to remedy an injustice” … . Addressing the second prong of that standard first—i.e., whether the statute “remed[ied] an injustice”—the Court of Appeals recognized that, “[i]n the context of a claim-revival statute, there is no principled way for a court to test whether a particular injustice is ‘serious’ or whether a particular class of plaintiffs is blameless; such moral determinations are left to the elected branches of government” … . Here, as evidenced by the legislative history of the CVA, the legislature considered the need for “justice for past and future survivors of child sexual abuse” and the need to “shift the significant and lasting costs of child sexual abuse to the responsible parties” … . Specifically, the legislative history noted the significant barriers those survivors faced in coming forward with their claims, including that child sexual abuse survivors may not be able to disclose their abuse until later in life after the relevant statute of limitations has run because of the mental, physical and emotional injuries sustained as a result of the abuse … . As explained in the Senate Introducer’s Memorandum in Support, “New York currently requires most survivors to file civil actions . . . against their abusers by the age of 23 at most, long before most survivors report or come to terms with their abuse, which has been estimated to be as high as 52 years old on average” … .. Because the statutes of limitat ions left “thousands of survivors” of child sexual abuse unable to sue their abusers, the legislature determined that there was an identifiable injustice that needed to be remedied … . PB-36 Doe v Niagara Falls City Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 00598, Fourth Dept 2-3-23

Practice Point: The revived statute of limitations in the Child Victims Act is constitutional.

 

, , ,

THE LACK-OF-STANDING DEFENSE WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER OR THE PREANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS; IT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; THEREFORE THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ACTION ON THAT GROUND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed petitioners’ declaratory judgment action against the town for lack of standing. The petitioners sought a ruling that the town had failed to enforce a zoning code provision which prohibited respondent-defendant from operating a commercial business out of his residence. Although the town moved to dismiss the action, it did not raise lack-of-standing in its answer or its motion. Therefore the judge did not have the authority to dismiss on that ground:

“Standing ‘is an aspect of justiciability which, when challenged, must be considered at the outset of any litigation’ ” … . Nonetheless, “a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect” … , and therefore a challenge to a party’s standing is waived if the defense is not asserted in either the answer or a preanswer motion to dismiss … . Here, the Town’s motion with respect to the second cause of action was not based on petitioners’ alleged lack of standing. Thus, we conclude that the court erred in sua sponte reaching the issue of standing with respect to that cause of action … . Matter of Cayuga Nation v Town of Seneca Falls, 2023 NY Slip Op 00575. Fourth Dept 2-3-23

Practice Point: A lack-of-standing is not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore, if it is not raised in the answer or a preanswer motion to dismiss, it is waived and the judge cannot raise it sua sponte.

 

, ,

MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT WHICH ECUADORIAN STATUTE IS MOST CLOSELY ANALOGOUS TO NEW YORK’S FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE CRITERIA FOR PURPOSES OF NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE; HERE THE ACTION ACCRUED IN ECUADOR; THE SHORTER OF THE APPLICABLE ECUADORIAN AND NEW YORK STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS WILL APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter for consideration of the expert evidence, determined Supreme Court may have applied the wrong Ecuadorian statute in the analysis of the statute of limitations under the borrowing statute:

Under CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute,” where a nonresident plaintiff sues on causes of action that accrued outside of New York, the claims must be timely under the limitations period of both New York and the jurisdiction where the action accrued … . In effect, the shorter of the two states’ statutes of limitations controls the timeliness of the action … . …

If the foreign state does not have causes of action directly analogous to the New York causes of action, the limitations period of the foreign causes of action that are most closely analogous to the New York claims are to be applied … . …

In performing the foregoing analysis, the motion court found applicable Ecuador’s default statute, which has a 10-year statute of limitations, and thereby found plaintiff’s claims timely filed, despite the expert testimony establishing that Ecuador’s default statute is not directly applicable to plaintiff’s fraudulent conveyance claims and not the Ecuadorian cause of action most closely analogous to the New York causes of action. Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd. v Occidental Petroleum Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 00481, First Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: Here the fraudulent conveyance action accrued in Ecuador. Under the borrowing statute the shorter of the New York and Ecuadorian statutes of limitations applies. Where, as here, there is no foreign statute exactly analogous to the New York cause of action, expert evidence about which foreign statute is most analogous should be considered.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SOUGHT TO ADD TWO PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANTS (PA’S) AS DEFENDANTS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS WERE THE PA’S EMPLOYERS OR SUPERVISORS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PA’S HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate the relation-back doctrine applied such that two physician’s assistants (PA’s) could be added as defendants after the statute of limitations had expired. There was no evidence the PA’s and the doctors were united in interest and no evidence the PA’s had timely notice of the suit:

In a negligence or malpractice action “the defenses available to two defendants will be identical, and thus their interests will be united, only where one is vicariously liable for the acts of the other” … . … As the PA defendants were employed by the practice, not the individual doctor defendants, there is no vicarious liability based on respondeat superior … . …  [T]he plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate that the PA defendants were directly supervised or controlled by the doctor defendants in their care and treatment of the decedent.

… The record is devoid of evidence that the PA defendants had notice that an action had been commenced against the doctor defendants prior to the expiration in 2014 of the statute of limitations for the medical malpractice and wrongful death causes of action. Sanders v Guida, 2023 NY Slip Op 00455, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: Here two of the three prongs of the relation-back doctrine should not have been applied to allow adding two physician’s assistants (PA’s) as defendants in this med mal case after the statute of limitations had run. The defendant doctors were not the PA’s employers or supervisors (the doctors and PA’s were not united in interest) and the plaintiff did not show the PA”s had timely knowledge of the suit.

 

,

DEFENDANT MANUFACTURED VALVES CONTAINING ASBESTOS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HAD A SMALL OFFICE IN NYC THE VALVES WERE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN CONNECTICUT, WHERE PLAINTIFF LIVED AND WORKED; THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEW YORK AND PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR NEW YORK JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s asbestos exposure action. Although the defendant manufacturer of valves containing asbestos had a small office in New York, defendant demonstrated that all the activity which related to the manufacture, sale and use of the valves took place in Connecticut. Plaintiff lived and worked exclusively in Connecticut as well:

… [T]here was no record evidence suggesting that defendant’s minimal activity in New York had an articulable nexus to plaintiff’s injury. … … [In addition] plaintiff did not offer a sufficient basis to justify jurisdictional discovery … . To the extent that defendant operated an executive and sales office out of the 100 Park Avenue office, this limited activity was not substantially related to plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos while working with and around defendant’s valves in Connecticut and plaintiff does not identify any other activity by defendant in New York that could provide a sufficient nexus to his injury. Instead, all conduct giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in Connecticut, as he was not a New York resident, did not purchase or work with defendant’s valves in New York, and does not claim to have suffered harm in this State … . Without an adequate relationship between New York and plaintiff’s claims, “specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State” … . Matter of New York Asbestos Litig., 2023 NY Slip Op 00402, First Dept 1-31-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged exposure to asbestos in valves made by defendant caused his cancer. The valves were manufactured and sold in Connecticut where plaintiff lived and worked. Defendant’s small office in New York was not sufficiently connected with plaintiff’s claims to support New York jurisdiction.

 

, ,

EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN NASSAU COUNTY WHERE THE CORPORATION DID HAVE AN OFFICE, VENUE WAS APPROPRIATELY PLACED IN NEW YORK COUNTY BASED ON DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to change venue in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Even though the accident didn’t occur in New York County and defendant corporation did not have an office in New York County, the certificate of incorporation designated New York County as the location of its principal office and the certificate controls:

Plaintiff properly placed venue in New York County based upon the corporate defendant’s initial certificate of incorporation designating New York County as the location of its principal office although the company has no office there (see CPLR 503 [c] …).

While defendants annexed to their moving papers the police report for the subject motor vehicle accident indicating that defendants’ vehicle was registered to a Nassau County address on the day of the accident and an affidavit from the corporate defendant’s Vice President averring that its office was in Nassau County when the action was commenced, the corporate residence designated in the initial certificate of incorporation controls for venue purposes … . There was no evidence of an amended certificate of incorporation that changed the principal place of business to Nassau County.

The general rule is that a transitory action, such as the subject motor vehicle accident, when other things are equal, should be tried in the county where the cause of action arose … . This rule, however, is predicated on the convenience of material nonparty witnesses who are to be present at trial … . While the situs of the accident provides a basis to change venue to Nassau County, defendants failed to sustain their burden, as the party moving for a discretionary change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), that there are material witnesses who would be inconvenienced by a trial in New York County … . Marte v Lampert, 2023 NY Slip Op 00375, First Dept 1-26-23

Practice Point: Here the traffic accident happened in Nassau County where defendant corporation had an office. But defendant’s certificate of incorporation indicated defendant’s principal office was in New York County. The certificate controls, even though the defendant corporation did not actually have an office in New York County.

 

, , ,

THE ONE-YEAR-AND-NINETY-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR A SUIT AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT IN GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 50-I(1)(C) IS SUBJECT TO THE INFANCY TOLL IN CPLR 208 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the infancy toll (CPLR 208) applies to the one year and 90-day time limit for a suit against a school district (General Municipal Law 50-i(1)(c)). Therefore the application for leave to file a late notice of claim in this action on behalf of an infant student against a school district should have been granted in its entirety:

Supreme Court erred in concluding that any claim by the infant plaintiff based upon incidents that occurred prior to May 31, 2017, would be time-barred. CPLR 208 tolls a statute of limitations for the period of infancy, including the limitation set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-i(1)(c) … . It is undisputed that the infant plaintiff was an infant at the time of the events underlying this action and at the time that the action was commenced. M. S. v Rye Neck Union Free Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 00343, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: The infancy toll of the statute of limitations in CPLR 208 applies to the one-year-ninety-day time limit for a suit against a school district in General Municipal Law 50-i(1)(c).

,

HERE NOTICE OF THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO THE TOWN FOR THE APPROVAL OF A FENCE AND GATE WAS MAILED TO PETITIONER; PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION THE NOTICE ARRIVED FIVE DAYS AFTER IT WAS MAILED; THEREFORE PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 action was timely brought. The petitioner’s application to the town Architectural Review Board for approval of a fence and a gate was denied. The denial determination was filed with the town clerk on April 26, 2019, and mailed to the petitioner on April 29, 2019. The Article 78 proceeding was commenced on August 29, 2019. Supreme Court held the Article 78 was time-barred but failed to add the five days for mailing:

“A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding on the petitioner” … . A determination becomes “‘final and binding upon the petitioner’ when the petitioner receives notice that the agency has ‘reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury and . . . the injury inflicted may not be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the [petitioner]'” … . Proof of proper mailing gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the determination was received by the petitioner five days after mailing (see CPLR 2103[b][2]…).

Here, based on the undisputed evidence demonstrating that the mailing of the determination to the petitioner occurred on April 29, 2019, it is presumed that the petitioner received the determination on May 4, 2019. Thus, his time to commence the instant proceeding did not expire until four months later, on September 4, 2019. Matter of Fiondella v Town of E. Hampton Architectural Review Bd., 2023 NY Slip Op 00319, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here the denial of petitioner’s application to the town for approval of a fence and gate was mailed to petitioner. Therefore the four-month statute of limitations for commencement of Article 78 actions started five days after the denial was mailed, not on the day it was mailed.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN WHY AN AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATING THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS PROPERLY MAILED WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE INITIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRECLUDED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Supreme Court initially denied the bank’s motion for summary judgment because the proof the notice of default was properly mailed was insufficient. The bank made a motion for leave to renew and submitted an affidavit which Supreme Court deemed sufficient. The Second Department held that the bank’s failure to explain why the affidavit wasn’t produced for the bank’s initial motion precluded renewal:

In support of that branch of its motion which was for leave to renew, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Alicia Hernandez, who averred that the required notice of default was mailed by first-class mail and that the address to which the notice of default was sent was the actual notice address. The only explanation offered by the plaintiff for its failure to submit the Hernandez affidavit on its prior motion was that it reasonably believed that the evidentiary submission it had made on the prior motion was sufficient to establish its prima facie case. This contention is devoid of merit. “A party seeking summary judgment should anticipate having to lay bare its proof and should not expect that it will readily be granted a second or third chance” … . In the instant matter, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any valid reason why the Hernandez affidavit could not have been submitted on its prior motion. Since the Hernandez affidavit was submitted without demonstrating a reasonable justification for failing to submit it on the prior motion, renewal should have been denied … . JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v EY Bay Ridge, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00311, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here in this foreclosure action, the bank’s failure to explain why proof of proper mailing of the notice of default was not presented in the initial summary judgment motion required the denial of the bank’s motion for leave to renew.

 

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