You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS WERE TIME-BARRED, THE RELATED WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION, BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS OF DEATH, WAS NOT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the medical malpractice actions were time-barred, the related wrongful death action, brought within two years of death, was not:

Although the plaintiff denominated the second cause of action as one for “loss of services,” she alleged all the elements necessary to plead a cause of action for wrongful death, including “(1) the death of a human being, (2) the wrongful act, neglect or default of the defendant by which the decedent’s death was caused, (3) the survival of distributees who suffered pecuniary loss by reason of the death of decedent, and (4) the appointment of a personal representative of the decedent” … . … [T]he wrongful death cause of action was timely. EPTL 5-4.1 provides that an action for wrongful death “must be commenced within two years after the decedent’s death.” Here, the decedent died on November 9, 2013, and this action was commenced on November 9, 2015. Thus, “the cause of action alleging wrongful death was timely commenced within two years of the decedent’s death, since, at the time of [his] death, [the] cause of action sounding in medical malpractice was not time-barred” … .Proano v Gutman, 2022 NY Slip Op 07253, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: Here the medical malpractice actions were time-barred, but the related wrongful death actions, brought within two years of death, were not.

 

,

THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WAS DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BREACH-OF-CONTRACT COMPLAINT; THERFORE WHETHER DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE INQUEST; THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IS UNCERTAIN DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s default admitted all the allegations in the complaint. Therefore damages should have been awarded for breach of contract:

A defaulting defendant is “deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow from them” … . “The sole issue to be determined at an inquest is the extent of damages sustained by the plaintiff” … . Here, the inquest court erred in considering the question of whether the defendants caused the damages sustained by the plaintiff … .

… [W]hile there is some uncertainty with respect to the plaintiff’s claim of lost profits, “when it is certain that damages have been caused by a breach of contract, and the only uncertainty is as to their amount, there can rarely be good reason for refusing, on account of such uncertainty, any damages whatever for the breach. A [party] violating [a] contract should not be permitted entirely to escape liability because the amount of the damages which [the party] has caused is uncertain” … . LD Acquisition Co. 9, LLC v TSH Trade Group, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07227, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: A defaulting defendant is deemed to have admitted all the allegations in the complaint. Therefore whether the defendant caused the damages alleged in the complaint should not be considered in the inquest. Here the failure to award any damages for breach of contract was not appropriate.

 

, ,

THE SO-ORDERED STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES RENDERED THE RELATED CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT MOOT; THE OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION RELIED ON SPECULATION ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined; (1) the stipulation between the two parties rendered the related cause of action in the complaint moot’ and (2) the other cause of action in the complaint was based on speculation about future events and therefore was not ripe for judicial review:

… [P]ursuant to the mootness doctrine, courts are precluded “from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances” … . By contrast, if an “anticipated harm is insignificant, remote or contingent the controversy is not ripe” for judicial review … . “To determine whether a matter is ripe for judicial review, it is necessary first to determine whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution, and second to assess the hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied” … .

… [T]he first cause of action was resolved by the parties’ so-ordered stipulation. … [T]hat cause of action was rendered academic pursuant to the mootness doctrine … . … [T]he second cause of action relied on speculation about what the County and its various departments might do in response to future audits, and therefore the contemplated harm was both remote and contingent and the controversy was not ripe for judicial review … . Kennedy v Suffolk County, 2022 NY Slip Op 07226, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: If a cause of action has already been addressed by a so-ordered stipulation, the cause of action is precluded by the mootness doctrine. If a cause of action is based on speculation about future events, it is not ripe for judicial review.

 

,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 RE: WHETHER THE BANK ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN GOOD FAITH (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this foreclosure action were entitled to a hearing on whether plaintiff bank engaged in settlement negotiations in good faith:

… Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ cross motion for a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff negotiated in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f). CPLR 3408 requires the parties in a residential foreclosure action to attend settlement conferences at an early stage of the litigation, at which they must “negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution” … . … [T]he circumstances surrounding its servicer’s handling of the first two loan modification applications are “relevant in the overall context of the parties’ relationship and the negotiations between them,” and thus, are relevant to the good faith inquiry … . …[D]efendants submitted evidence that the plaintiff “engaged in dilatory conduct by making piecemeal document requests, providing contradictory information, and repeatedly requesting documents which had already been provided”… . Investors Bank v Brooks, 2022 NY Slip Op 07224, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: Defendants submitted evidence the bank in this foreclosure action did not engage in settlement negotiations pursuant to CPLR 3408 in good faith. Supreme Court should have held a hearing.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL MISCALENDARED THE RETURN DATE FOR THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT DUE TO LAW OFFICE FAILURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment due to law office failure should have been granted. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment had been granted:

The law office failure of miscalendaring dates has been deemed a reasonable excuse … . Here, defendant’s counsel miscalendared the return date of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion for July 1, 2021 rather than June 1, 2021. Counsel explained that it is his regular practice to calendar motion dates once a return date is set; to review his calendar daily and on or about the first of each month; and that he had been working part-time at home with a less robust system compared to his office … . Accordingly, defendant proffered a reasonable excuse in the form of law office failure and should not be deprived of its day in court for counsel’s error … .  First Am. Tit. Ins. Co. v Successful Abstract, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07186, First Dept 12-20-22

Practice Point: Miscalendaring the return date for the motion for summary judgment was deemed a reasonable excuse for the default (law office failure).

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT UPDATE ITS ADDRESS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS AND DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR DEFAULT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE NEED BE SHOWN IN A MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317; DEFAULT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner’s (St. Andrews’) motion to vacate the default judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. St. Andrews had not updated its address with the Secretary of State and did not have a reasonable excuse. However a reasonable excuse is not required by CPLR 317:

St. Andrews’s principal demonstrated that he had received a letter notification of plaintiff’s accident before commencement of the action which he forwarded to his insurance broker, but that he never received any further notice until he received the information subpoena. The principal of DP Realty [designated by St. Andrews to receive service of process] also averred that he was unaware of the summons and complaint ever having been received, and therefore it would not have forwarded any papers to St. Andrews. That evidence was sufficient under CPLR 317 to establish St. Andrews’s lack of personal notice of the summons in time to defend. St. Andrews also demonstrated a meritorious defense in that the Yonkers City Code “does not expressly make the landowner liable for failure to perform” the duty to clean snow and ice from the sidewalk, and an abutting landowner is not liable in the absence of such a statute for failure to clear snow, ice and dirt … .

… [P]laintiff demonstrated that St. Andrews never updated its address with the Secretary of State, and thus could not show a reasonable excuse for its default under CPLR 5015(a)(1). However, no showing of a reasonable excuse is required under CPLR 317 … , and it cannot be inferred solely from the failure to update defendant’s address with the Secretary of State that defendant was deliberately avoiding receiving notice … . In light of the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits … , we find that St. Andrews demonstrated entitlement to vacatur under CPLR 317… . Gomez v Karyes Realty Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 07187, First Dept 12-20-22

Practice Point: No reasonable excuse for a default need be shown in a motion the vacate the default pursuant to CPLR 317, Here the defendant’s failure to update its address for the service of process with the Secretary of State was not an attempt to avoid service. The motion to vacate the default should have been granted.

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A NEW TRIAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT MAKE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT IN A JURY TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice case. determined the motion to set aside the verdict as a matter of law should not have been granted. but the motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should have been granted, explaining the difference:

“‘A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) 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 considering such a motion, the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant” … . …

… “[A] motion to set aside a jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence should be granted ‘[o]nly where the evidence so preponderates in favor of the unsuccessful litigant that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence'” … . … “‘Whether a particular factual determination is against the weight of the evidence is itself a factual question. In reviewing a judgment of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division has the power to determine whether a particular factual question was correctly resolved by the trier of facts. If the original fact determination was made by a jury, as in this case, and the Appellate Division concludes that the jury has made erroneous factual findings, the court is required to order a new trial, since it does not have the power to make new findings of fact in a jury case'” … . * * *

As to the weight of the evidence, based on the record, we find that the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, and must be set aside (see CPLR 4404[a] …). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment, reinstate the complaint, grant that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial…. . Osorio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 07072, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: When an appellate court determines the verdict should be set aside as against the weight of the evidence in a jury trial it must order a new trial because an appellate court does not have the authority to make new findings of fact in a jury trial.

 

, ,

RESETTLEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WAS PROPER ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF CORRECTING A MISTAKE IN THE JUDGMENT; RESETTLEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judgment of divorce should have been resettled to the extent that the judgment conform with the stipulation. But the judgment should not have been modified to include a provision which was not in the stipulation. Resettlement cannot be used to amend the judgment, as opposed to correcting a mistake:

Resettlement of a judgment of divorce pursuant to CPLR 5019(a) is an appropriate remedy when the judgment does not accurately incorporate the terms of a stipulation of settlement … . Here, although the judgment of divorce provided that the defendant was responsible for providing health insurance for the parties’ children, that provision was inconsistent with the terms of the stipulation. Specifically, the stipulation contained a provision which set forth that the plaintiff was responsible for providing health insurance for the parties’ children through her employer unless she became unemployed, and then the defendant would be responsible for providing health insurance for them through his employer. …

… Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to resettle the judgment of divorce to the extent it sought to replace the provision requiring the defendant to provide health insurance for the parties’ children with a provision requiring the plaintiff to be solely responsible to provide health insurance for the parties’ children … . The amendment proposed by the defendant failed to comport with the terms of the stipulation regarding the responsibility of the parties as to the health insurance for their children and was a substantive modification beyond the court’s inherent authority to correct a mistake, defect, or irregularity in the original judgment “not affecting a substantial right of a party” (CPLR 5019[a] …). Ferrigan v Ferrigan, 2022 NY Slip Op 07058, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here resettlement of the judgment of divorce pursuant to CPLR 5019 was appropriate only to the extent of correcting a mistake by conforming the judgment to the stipulation. Resettlement should not have been used to amend the judgment to include a provision which was not in the stipulation.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK MADE A DEFECTIVE MOTION (WHICH WAS REJECTED) FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND DID NOT CORRECT THE ERRORS IN THE MOTION FOR TEN YEARS; THE MAJORITY HELD THE ACTION HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND THE ACTION SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE CALENDAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action, by filing a motion for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default, demonstrated it did not intend to abandon the action and the matter, therefore, should be restored to the calendar. The facts that the motion was initially rejected and plaintiff delayed ten years before addressing the defects in the motion did not require a different result:

Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint in this action pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). The plaintiff demonstrated that it filed a motion, inter alia, for an order of reference on October 24, 2008, which was within one year of the defendants’ default in the action. Presenting this motion to the court was sufficient to demonstrate the plaintiff’s intent to have the action proceed, notwithstanding that the motion papers were ultimately rejected by the court as defective … .. Although our dissenting colleague notes that the plaintiff thereafter failed to explain its failure to fix the defects that resulted in the motion papers being rejected for a period of 10 years, once a plaintiff establishes “compliance with CPLR 3215(c),” it is “not required, under the plain language of that subdivision, to account for any additional periods of delay that may have occurred subsequent to the initial one-year period contemplated by CPLR 3215(c)” ,,, ,Thus, because the plaintiff did not abandon the action, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Lamarre, 2022 NY Slip Op 07056, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: The plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action made a defective motion for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default. That motion was sufficient to demonstrate plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action, even though motion was rejected and plaintiff did not correct the defects in the motion for ten years. The judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint and the matter should have been restored to the calendar.

 

AFTER DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND FOLLOWING AN INQUEST ON DAMAGES PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED ABOUT $275,000; THE JUDGE ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS AS REQUIRED BY 22 NYCRR 202.48; PLANTIFF DID NOT DO SO FOR MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF YEARS; THE ORDER GRANTING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND THE DECISION ON THE INQUEST WERE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the order granting a default judgment and the decision awarding nearly $275,000 must be vacated because plaintiff did not submit a notice of settlement and a proposed judgment within 60 days as required by 22 NYCRR 202.48:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(a), “[p]roposed 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.” “Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown” (id. § 202.48[b]). Here, it is undisputed that, on January 10, 2017, the plaintiff was directed to settle a judgment on notice. Thus, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(a), the plaintiff was required to submit a notice of settlement and proposed judgment within 60 days after January 10, 2017 … . It is also undisputed that the plaintiff failed to submit a notice of settlement and proposed judgment until July 2, 2019, nearly 2½ years after the Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to settle a judgment on notice. Thus, the plaintiff failed to timely settle a judgment pursuant to the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.48(a).

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show good cause for his lengthy delay in submitting a notice of settlement and proposed judgment in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive … . Thus, under the particular circumstances of this case, the court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 to vacate the order dated July 23, 2014. … [T]he decision rendered after the inquest must also be vacated. Cruz v Pierce, 2022 NY Slip Op 07054, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was granted a default judgment and, after an inquest of damages, was awarded nearly $275,000. The judge ordered plaintiff to submit a notice of settlement and a proposed judgment within 60 days as required by 22 NYCRR 202.48. Plaintiff failed to do so and the order granting the default judgment and the decision awarding damages were vacated.

 

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