You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS BUT DID NOT WARRANT SUPREME COURT’S STRIKING THE COMPLAINT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION IMPOSED EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AND ORDERED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO PAY DEFENDANT $3000 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, agreed plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery orders was willful and contumacious, but determined striking the complaint was too severe a sanction. The appellate division’s sanctions included ordering plaintiff’s counsel to pay defendant $3000:

… [T]he record demonstrates that the plaintiff violated court orders directing her to appear for a continued deposition by a certain date, to provide a full set of copies of photographs that she referenced during her first deposition or provide an affidavit as to the nonexistence of those photographs, and to execute authorizations for certain medical providers, a pattern that supports an inference of willful and contumacious behavior … . Furthermore, the plaintiff’s procedural objection to the defendant’s motion was without merit. However, under the circumstances, we find that the striking of the complaint was too drastic a remedy … . Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint should have been granted only to the extent of (1) precluding the plaintiff from using at trial any photograph that was not produced in response to the defendant’s discovery demands, (2) directing the plaintiff to provide the defendant with medical authorizations for Jamaica Hospital, and (3) directing the plaintiff’s counsel to personally pay the sum of $3,000 as a sanction to the defendant … . Castillo v Charles, 2022 NY Slip Op 06103, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Here the appellate division found plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery orders willful and contumacious but did not agree with Supreme Court’s striking of the complaint. The appellate court imposed evidentiary sanctions and ordered plaintiff’s counsel to pay defendant $3000.

 

, ,

DRIVER PURCHASED A GOODYEAR TIRE FOR HIS FORD FROM US TIRES, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; THE TIRE ALLEGEDLY FAILED LEADING TO A SERIOUS ACCIDENT IN VIRGINIA; DRIVER SUED US TIRES; US TIRES SUED GOODYEAR AND FORD, BOTH OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS, SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION; NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER GOODYEAR AND FORD IN THE US TIRES SUIT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Genovesi, determined New York has long-arm jurisdiction over third-party defendants Ford and Goodyear in this suit by a New York corporation, US Tires. US Tires installed a Goodyear tire on a Ford. The tire allegedly failed in Virginia and three passengers died. The plaintiffs, including the driver, sued US Tires. US Tires sued Ford and Goodyear, both out-of-state corporation, seeking indemnification. The issue on appeal was whether Ford and Goodyear had sufficient contacts with New York to support long-arm jurisdiction:

Ford and Goodyear concede that they conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in New York, thus satisfying the first prong of CPLR 302(a)(1). As to the second prong of CPLR 302(a)(1), US Tires demonstrated that Goodyear’s and Ford’s activities in New York have a sufficient connection with the claims herein. * * *

When all the requirements of CPLR 302 are met, the exercise of personal jurisdiction still must comport with constitutional due process requirements … . * * *

Based on the record before us, the exercise of specific jurisdiction over Ford and Goodyear comports with due process … . … Ford and Goodyear concede that they had sufficient “minimum contacts” with New York. … [T]he only remaining question is whether Ford and Goodyear have met their burden of presenting “a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable” … . We conclude that Ford and Goodyear have failed to meet this burden. Aybar v US Tires & Wheels of Queens, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06099, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: This decision includes a comprehensive discussion of general and specific jurisdiction which is worth consulting. In this suit by a New York corporation, US Tires, seeking indemnification from two out-of-state corporations, Ford and Goodyear, the court determined Ford and Goodyear had sufficient contacts with New York to support long-arm jurisdiction. US Tires installed a Goodyear tire on driver’s Ford. The tire allegedly failed in Virginia, causing a serious accident. The driver sued US Tires. US Tires sued Ford and Goodyear.

 

,

IN AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF REASONABLY RELIED ON THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION IS USUALLY A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH CANNOT BE RESOLVED IN A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement. Plaintiff radiologist alleged defendant induced him to open a radiology practice which, plaintiff said, already had a patient-referral system in place. Plaintiff alleged that, after expending funds to open the practice, he learned he would have to pay for the referrals and he shut the practice down. The appellate court held that whether plaintiff reasonably relied on the alleged misrepresentation usually is a question of fact for the jury:

Regarding reasonable reliance on a misrepresentation of a material fact, the “plaintiff is expected to exercise ordinary diligence and may not claim to have reasonably relied on a defendant’s representations [or silence] where he [or she] has means available to him [or her] of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation” … .

The “question of what constitutes reasonable reliance is always nettlesome because it is so fact-intensive” …  The resolution of the issue of whether a plaintiff reasonably relied on a defendant’s misrepresentation in support of a cause of action alleging fraud in the inducement is ordinarily relegated to the finder of fact … . … [P]laintiffs adequately stated a cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent inducement insofar as the determination of the reasonableness of [plaintiff-radiologist’s] reliance on [defendant’s] alleged misrepresentations concerning, among other things, the source of the … patient referrals itself entailed a question of fact not appropriate for summary disposition as a matter of law. Feldman v Byrne, 2022 NY Slip Op 06113, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: In an action for fraudulent inducement, whether the plaintiff’s reliance on the alleged misrepresentation was reasonable is a difficult issue which usually raises a question of fact for the jury and therefore cannot be summarily resolved in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED FACTS SUPPORTING PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL; THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the complaint sufficiently alleged the corporate veil should be pierced, and (2) the unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing causes of action should not have been dismissed:

… [A] plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . “The decision whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instance depends on the particular facts and circumstances” … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether the owner has abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form include whether there was a failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and use of corporate funds for personal use” … . A cause of action under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is not required to meet any heightened level of particularity in its allegations … .

… [T]he plaintiffs adequately pleaded allegations that [the individual defendants] dominated [the corporations], and that they engaged in acts amounting to an abuse of the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against the plaintiffs … . …

Where, as here, the existence of a contract, in this case, the alleged agreements [are] in dispute, a plaintiff may allege a cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment as an alternative to a cause of action alleging breach of contract (see CPLR 3014 …). Consequently, the cause of action alleging unjust enrichment was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action … . Furthermore, the cause of action alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action since it alleged that the defendants engaged in additional conduct to realize gains from the plaintiffs, while depriving the plaintiffs of the benefits of the parties’ agreements … . F&R Goldfish Corp. v Furleiter, 2022 NY Slip Op 06112. Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: The facts alleged in the complaint supported piercing the corporate veil, criteria explained.

Practice Point: Because the existence of the agreements was in dispute, the unjust enrichment cause of action should not have been dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action.

Practice Point: The facts alleged supported a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

 

, ,

A MOTION TO VACATE AN ORDER SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE JUDGE WHO MADE THE ORDER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) a motion to vacate an order should be transferred to the judge who made the order; and (2) the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the foreclosure complaint:

A motion to vacate an order “shall be made, on notice, to the judge who signed the order, unless he or she is for any reason unable to hear it” (CPLR 2221[a]). “A motion made to other than a proper judge . . . shall be transferred to the proper judge” (CPLR 2221[c]). Here, instead of denying the first motion with leave to renew before Justice Schulman, the Supreme Court should have transferred the first motion to Justice Schulman … . …

“‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . Here, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directives of the order … was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the complaint in the first action … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Dedalto, 2022 NY Slip Op 06105, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: A motion to vacate an order should be transferred to the judge who made the order.

Practice Point: A judge’s power to, sua sponte, dismiss a complaint is limited and should only be exercised in extraordinary circumstances (not present in this case).

 

,

PETITIONERS’ CHALLENGE TO THE NEW PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTION LAW ADDRESSING THE NEW PROCESS OF CANVASSING ABSENTEE BALLOTS WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the challenge to the new process of canvassing absentee ballots was precluded by the doctrine of laches:

Petitioners commenced this proceeding/action challenging the constitutionality of the new process of canvassing absentee ballots in Election Law § 9-209 nine months after it was enacted, after the process was in effect for two primary elections and several special elections, and at the time that canvassing of absentee ballots using the new process began in the 2022 general election. The amendment to Election Law § 8-400 was enacted in 2020 and has been in effect for multiple general, primary and special elections but petitioners did not challenge the statute until nine months after the sunset clause was extended and after the mailing of absentee ballots had already begun. … In short, petitioners delayed too long in bringing this proceeding/action. To the extent that petitioners contend that they did not bring the challenges until they were ripe, the action constitutes facial challenges to the statutes, implicating their text, not their applications, and, therefore, the action was ripe at the time of the enactment of the statutes … . Matter of Amedure v State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 06096, Third Dept 11-1-22

Practice Point: The petitioners didn’t bring this challenge to new provisions in the Election Law addressing the canvassing of absentee ballots until nine months after enactment and after the new process had been used several elections. The petition was precluded by the doctrine of laches.

 

, ,

THE BREACH OF CONTRACT (FIRE INSURANCE POLICY) CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT DID NOT GIVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM THE CONTRACT SHOULD BE REFORMED BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE; THEREFORE THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONFORM THE PLEADINGS TO THE PROOF AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ENDORSEMENT REQUIRING A SPRINKLER SYSTEM ON THE INSURED PREMISES WAS INCLUDED IN THE POLICY BY MUTUAL MISTAKE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined plaintiff should not have been allowed to conform the pleadings to the proof and the jury should not have considered whether the contract, an insurance policy, should be reformed based upon mutual mistake. The complaint alleged defendant insurer breached the contract (the policy) by refusing to pay for fire damage. The insurance policy included a Protective Safeguards Endorsement (PSE) which required plaintiff to have a sprinkler system in good working order. The buildings apparently were vacant and did not have sprinkler systems. Based on testimony given at trial, plaintiff argued inclusion of the PSE was a mutual mistake and the contract (policy) should be reformed to exclude it. The jury and the appellate division so found. But the Court of Appeals held the courts should not have looked beyond the four corners of the pleadings, and the pleadings did not give notice of the reformation action:

[CPLR] Section 203 (f) requires the court to determine solely whether a plaintiff’s or a defendant’s original pleading gives notice of the transactions or occurrences underlying the proposed amendment …

To plead reformation, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts supporting a claim of mutual mistake, meaning that “the parties have reached an oral agreement and, unknown to either, the signed writing does not express that agreement” … . Given the “heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties, . . . [t]he proponent of reformation must show in no uncertain terms, not only that mistake or fraud exists, but exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties” … .

In contrast, to plead a cause of action for breach of contract, a plaintiff usually must allege that: (1) a contract exists … ; (2) plaintiff performed in accordance with the contract … ; (3) defendant breached its contractual obligations … ; and (4) defendant’s breach resulted in damages … . …

The complaint … alleges that plaintiffs complied “with all of the conditions precedent and subsequent pursuant to the terms of the subject policy.” This … allegation is fatal to plaintiffs’ assertion that the complaint provides notice of the transactions or occurrences to be proved in support of a reformation claim. In fact, if anything, it suggests the opposite because, by asserting total compliance, plaintiffs necessarily disclaimed any challenge to the policy’s terms, specifically the PSE. 34-06 73, LLC v Seneca Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 06029, CtApp 10-27-22

Practice Point: Here the complaint alleged defendant insurer breached the policy by refusing to pay for fire damage. The insured buildings were vacant and did not have sprinkler systems. The policy included an endorsement requiring sprinkler systems. The insurer refused payment citing plaintiff’s failure to comply with the “sprinkler” endorsement. Based on trial evidence, plaintiff moved to conform the pleadings to the proof to include a cause of action for reformation of the contract alleging that the endorsement requiring sprinkler systems was included by mutual mistake and should be excluded from the policy. The Court of Appeals ruled the complaint did not give notice of the reformation cause of action. Therefore the jury should have been allowed to consider it. The trial verdict, reforming the contract to exclude the “sprinkler” endorsement, and the affirmance by the appellate division were reversed.

 

,

THE RECEIVER APPOINTED TO CONTROL PROPERTY INVOLVED IN AN OWNERSHIP DISPUTE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OWNER IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT). ​

​The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the receiver, appointed to take control of two properties the ownership of which is in dispute, should have been substituted as the representative owner of the property in a slip and fall case:

Generally, a temporary receiver appointed pursuant to CPLR article 64 “is a person appointed by the court to take control of designated property and see to its care and preservation during litigation” … . Pertinent here, the appointment order authorized the receiver “to immediately take charge and enter possession of the properties,” and empowered the receiver to “act as manager and landlord of the properties.” Correspondingly, the receiver was “authorized and obligated to keep the properties insured against loss by damage of fire . . . and to procure such . . . other insurance as may be reasonably necessary.” Given these directives, we cannot agree with Supreme Court’s assessment that the receiver was accorded only a limited role that did not include property maintenance. To the contrary, the receiver was charged with both the authority and responsibility to assume control over the properties. Pursuant to CPLR 1017, “[i]f a receiver is appointed for a party . . . the court shall order substitution of the proper parties.” That is the situation here. By the court’s directive, responsibility over the management of the properties was passed from the disputing owners to the receiver … . As such, the receiver should have been substituted as the representative owner of the … property … . Wen Mei Lu v Wen Ying Gamba, 2022 NY Slip Op 06037, Second Dept 10-27-22

Practice Point: Here a receiver was appointed to control properties involved in an ownership dispute. The receiver should have been substituted as a representative owner in a slip and fall case.

 

, , ,

THE CERTIFICATION OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT EXECUTED THE CONTRACT, BUT THAT EVIDENCE CREATES ONLY A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION; PLAINTIFF PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT SIGNED THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the certification of acknowledgment is prima facie proof the contract was executed by decedent but the certification only creates a rebuttable presumption:

… [T]he agreement was notarized by defendant Rosemary Bellini. “Certification of the acknowledgment or proof of a writing . . . in the manner prescribed by law for taking and certifying the acknowledgment or proof of a conveyance of real property within the state is prima facie evidence that it was executed by the person who purported to do so” (CPLR 4538). * * *

“The certification of acknowledgment becomes prima facie evidence that the writing was executed by the person who acknowledged having done so. [This] [p]rima facie evidence” is not conclusive; rather, it “creates a rebuttable presumption” … .  Plaintiff marshalled considerable evidence casting doubt on whether decedent actually signed the purported agreement and, if so, whether he knew or understood what he was signing. Thus, plaintiff should be given a chance to rebut the presumption created by Bellini’s notarization … . Langbert v Aconsky, 2022 NY Slip Op 06067, First Dept 10-27-22

Practice Point: Here the certification of acknowledgment was prima facie proof decedent signed the agreement but that proof only creates a rebuttable presumption. But plaintiff raised a question of fact whether decedent actually executed the agreement.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS WARRANTING STRIKING ITS ANSWER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s (Motors’s) failure to turn over records despite four court orders and defendant’s attempt to mislead plaintiff about its compliance with the discovery requirements warranted striking defendant’s answer:

We find that Motors’s failure to produce these records was willful and contumacious, in view of the fact that it did not do so despite four courts orders, and in light of its interrogatory response implying that it had complied with its discovery obligations in an apparent attempt to mislead plaintiff (see CPLR 3216 …). Although the other defendants were represented by the same counsel as Motors, there is no indication that they exercised control over Motors or were in possession of Motors’s records … .

Motors’s dilatory behavior warrants striking its answer … . Lopez v Bronx Ford, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06068, First Dept 10-27-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s failure to comply with four discovery orders and its attempt to mislead plaintiff about its compliance was deemed willful and contumacious warranting striking defendant’s answer.

 

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