, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET A DEADLINE SET IN A STATUS CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this foreclosure proceeding should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint when plaintiff did not move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by the deadline set in a status conference order:

On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a status conference order … directing the plaintiff to “file an application for a [j]udgment of [f]oreclosure [and] sale” by June 7, 2017. The plaintiff failed to do so. In an order entered June 15, 2017 (hereinafter the dismissal order), the court, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint and cancellation of the notice of pendency.

A court’s power to dismiss an action, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal … . Here, the plaintiff’s failure to move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale as directed by the … status conference order was not a sufficient ground upon which to sua sponte direct dismissal of the complaint and cancellation of the notice of pendency … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Martinez, 2023 NY Slip Op 01179, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: Sua sponte dismissals of complaints are disfavored. Here the failure to meet a deadline set in a status conference did not justify a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA) UNILATERALLY ADJOURNED THE 5O-H HEARING IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AND ALLEGEDLY SENT A FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF DENIED RECEIPT OF THE LETTER AND DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE IN REPLY; THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT CONSIDERED; IN ADDITION, THE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE THE LETTER WAS MAILED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) in this slip and fall case should not have been dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to attend the General Municipal Law 50-h hearing. The NYCHA unilaterally adjourned the hearing by follow-up letter. Plaintiff denied receipt of the follow-up letter and the NYCHA included an affidavit of service in its reply. The Second Department noted that the affidavit of service should not be considered because it was first submitted in reply. In addition, the affidavit did not present sufficient proof of mailing:

… [E]ven had the affidavit of service of the follow-up letter been submitted with the defendants’ moving papers, the mere assertion therein that the letter was mailed, unsupported by someone with personal knowledge of the mailing of the letter or proof of standard office practice to ensure that it was properly mailed, was insufficient to give rise to the presumption of receipt that attaches to letters duly mailed … . Inasmuch as there was no adequate proof that NYCHA served the follow-up letter adjourning the 50-h hearing, NYCHA failed to establish entitlement to such a hearing and that the plaintiff was precluded from commencing this action against NYCHA … . Acevedo v Hope Gardens I, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01073, Second Dept 3-1-23

Practice Point: Yet again an affidavit did not prove a document was mailed because the affiant did not have personal knowledge of the mailing and there was no evidence of a standard office practice to ensure proper mailing.

 

, ,

AFTER AN IMPORTANT PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESS BECAME ILL DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION AND WAS TAKEN BY AMBULANCE TO THE HOSPITAL, THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, DECLARED THE WITNESS UNAVAILABLE, STRUCK HIS TESTIMONY AND ADMITTED HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY; THERE WAS NO SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE FINDING THE WITNESS WOULD BE UNABLE TO TESTIFY; JUDGMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the judgment after trial, determined the trial judge should not have, sua sponte, announced that an important witness for plaintiffs (Awad) was unavailable due to illness, struck the witness’s testimony and admitted the witness’s deposition testimony:

During his cross-examination, Awad fell ill, and was taken from the courthouse by ambulance. …

CPLR 3117(a)(3)(iii) permits the reading of a witness’s deposition at trial where the court finds “that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment” … . In exercising its discretion under CPLR 3117, “the trial court may not act arbitrarily or deprive a litigant of a full opportunity to present [its] case” … .

Here, there is no information in the record regarding the nature of Awad’s illness or the treatment he received, or whether he was hospitalized and for how long. Thus, the Supreme Court’s sua sponte determination that Awad was unavailable to testify due to sickness or infirmity lacked support in the record, and the court improvidently exercised its discretion in determining that Awad’s deposition testimony was admissible under CPLR 3117(a)(3)(iii) … . 244 Linwood One, LLC v Tio Deli Grocery Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 01072, Second Dept 3-1-23

Practice Point: Here a witness became ill during cross-examination and was taken to the hospital by ambulance. Without putting any additional information on the record, the judge declared the witness unavailable, struck his testimony and admitted his deposition. Because there was no support in the record for the judge’s (sua sponte) determination the witness would not be able to testify, the judgment after trial was reversed.

 

THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE MORE THAN 15 DAYS AFTER THE DEMAND TO CHANGE VENUE; THE 15-DAY TIME-LIMIT IS STRICTLY ENFORCED AND THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 511(b) was made more than 15 days after their demand to change venue and was therefore untimely:

Supreme Court should have denied defendants’ motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County because it was untimely made. Defendants have a reasonable excuse for their failure to make a timely demand to change venue. They learned of plaintiff’s Westchester address on April 5, 2022, when they received plaintiff’s medical authorizations and a copy of the Aided report, and made a prompt demand to change venue the day after, on April 6, 2022 … . However, pursuant to CPLR 511(b), defendants had until April 21, 2022, 15 days after service of their demand, to make the motion. Defendants’ motion made on April 26, 2022, 20 days after the demand, is untimely and should have been denied. Defendant did not move within the strict time limits provided by the statute and failed to offer any explanation for the delay … . Gomez v Cypser, 2023 NY Slip Op 01060, First Dept 2-28-23

Practice Point: Once defendant makes a demand to change venue, defendant has 15 days to make a motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 511(b). The 15-day time-limit is strictly enforced. Here the motion was made 20 days after the demand and Supreme Court should not have granted it.

 

, , ,

AFFIDAVITS NOT BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY CERTIFIED BUSINESS RECORDS HAVE NO PROBATIVE VALUE; HERE THE AFFIDAVITS FAILED TO PROVE DEFENDANT WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF RENTING TRUCKS SUCH THAT THE GRAVE’S AMENDMENT APPLIED, AND FAILED TO PROVE THE TRUCK WAS PROPERLY MAINTAINED; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined defendant lessor of the truck which struck plaintiff’s vehicle did not present sufficient evidence that it was in the business of renting trucks, such that the Grave’s amendment applied, or that the truck was properly maintained. The defendant attempted to show it was in the business of renting trucks with affidavits which referred to documents that were not attached. In addition, the papers did not demonstrate the truck was properly maintained:

… [Defendant] failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment under the Graves Amendment, which bars state law vicarious liability actions against owners of motor vehicles when (1) they are engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, (2) they leased the vehicle involved in the accident, (3) the subject accident occurred during the period of the lease or rental and (4) there is no triable issue of fact as to the plaintiff’s allegation of negligent maintenance contributing to the accident ,,, , ,,,

Neither affidavit sufficiently establishes the basis — personal knowledge or from identifiable business records — for the affiants’ knowledge of the contents of the affidavits. Therefore, they are of no probative value.

The documents submitted with the motion cannot be admitted as business records because they are not certified, and the affidavits do not lay a sufficient foundation for their admissibility … . Although an affidavit that is not based on the affiant’s personal knowledge may still serve to authenticate a document for its admissibility as a business record, as long as the affiant demonstrates sufficient personal knowledge of the document in question … , and the affidavit sufficiently establishes that the document falls within the business record exception to the hearsay rule … , here we are lacking both. The “acknowledgment of lease” letters — which refer to an unattached “previously executed Equipment Rental Agreement” — submitted with these affidavits are not certified as business records, nor do the affidavits lay a sufficient foundation for the letters’ introduction as business records. Without a proper foundation, these documents are not admissible. …

When a plaintiff seeks to hold a vehicle owner liable for the failure to maintain a rented vehicle, the owner is not afforded protection under the Graves Amendment if it fails to demonstrate that it did not negligently maintain the vehicle … , or to prove that it was not responsible for the maintenance and repair of the vehicle during the lease … .  Muslar v Hall, 2023 NY Slip Op 01063, First Dept 2-28-23

Practice Point: Affidavits must either be based upon the affiant’s personal knowledge or supported by certified business records. Here the affidavits did not show defendant was in the business of renting trucks and did not show the truck involved in the accident was properly maintained. Therefore the Grave’s amendment criteria were not proven and defendant was not entitled to summary judgment. The Grave’s amendment provides that the vehicle-owner who is in the business of renting vehicles will not be liable for an accident if the vehicle was properly maintained.

 

, ,

​ THE PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE THE DOCUMENT OFFERED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S MASSACHUSETTS CONVICTION CERTIFIED PURSUANT TO CPLR 4540; SECOND FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender, determined the proof of the Massachusetts conviction which was the basis for the second felony offender status was deficient:

… [T]he People offered a copy of a “warrant” transferring defendant from local custody to state prison, as well as a copy of defendant’s public docket report. Both documents reflect defendant’s conviction in Massachusetts of armed robbery, bear the seal of the Massachusetts Superior Court and contain the signature of a court official attesting that such documents are true copies. However, the People’s submissions “lacked the certificate, under seal, showing that the attestor was the legal custodian of the records and that this signature was genuine as required by CPLR 4540 [c]” …  As a result of such failure, we vacate defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender, as well as the resulting sentence, and remit this matter to County Court for a new second felony offender hearing, at which time the People will have an opportunity to overcome the technical deficiencies in their proof … . People v Caraballo, 2023 NY Slip Op 01029, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: To prove a foreign conviction the relevant document must be certified in accordance with CPLR 4540 (c).

 

, , ,

THE PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION PENDING A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS UNINSURED MOTORIST TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PROCEDURAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for a stay of arbitration pending a framed issue hearing should have been granted in this uninsured motorist traffic accident case:

“The party seeking a stay of arbitration has the burden of showing the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue which would justify the stay” … . “Thereafter, the burden shifts to the party opposing the stay to rebut the prima facie showing” … . “Where a triable issue of fact is raised, the Supreme Court, not the arbitrator, must determine it in a framed-issue hearing, and the appropriate procedure under such circumstances is to temporarily stay arbitration pending a determination of the issue” … .

Here, the appellants concede that Infinity [petitioner insurer] satisfied its prima facie burden of showing sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue that would justify a stay of arbitration. In support of its petition, Infinity submitted, inter alia, an affidavit from its investigator, who stated that he found that a claim for property damage was previously made to GEICO arising out of the subject accident … . In opposition, the appellants raised issues of fact as to whether GEICO’s insured was involved in the accident … . Matter of Infinity Indem. Ins. Co. v Leo, 2023 NY Slip Op 01003, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: The procedural criteria for a determining a petition for a stay of arbitration pending a framed issue hearing in an uninsured motorist traffic accident case are explained.

 

, ,

WHERE ONE OF TWO RELATED FORECLOSURE ACTIONS IS SUBJECT TO A MERITORIOUS MOTION TO DISMISS AS TIME-BARRED, IT IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE TIME-BARRED ACTION WITH THE TIMELY ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, reversing Supreme Court, determined that where one action is subject to a meritorious motion to dismiss as time-barred, it is an abuse of discretion for a judge to grant a motion to consolidate that action with another which is timely:

… [B]oth actions are to foreclose on the same mortgage securing the same debt owed by the same defendant. However, in our view, a precondition for merging two or more actions is that each action should itself be viable, meaning that neither is confronted with a pending—and apparently meritorious—motion to dismiss. Once the defendant here met her burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to commence the 2017 action had expired, it became the plaintiff’s burden to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable, or whether the plaintiff actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period. The plaintiff could not meet that shifted burden by merely asserting that the 2017 action will become timely once it is merged with the timely 2008 action. The purpose of consolidation under CPLR 602(a) is not to provide a party with a procedural end run around a legal defense applicable to one of the actions. In our opinion, in such instances, judicial discretion should not be used to cure the untimeliness of one action by tethering it to a related timely action. We hold, as an issue of apparent first impression that, in this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting consolidation and that, in general, consolidation should be denied where one of the cases to be consolidated is subject to a meritorious motion to dismiss…. . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Francis, 2023 NY Slip Op 00992, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here there were two related foreclosure actions. One was subject to dismissal as time-barred and the other was timely. The two should not be consolidated as an end-run around the statute of limitations.

 

, , , , ,

SUPREME COURT HAD THE POWER TO APPOINT THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT THE ESTATE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED THE INSURER, NOT THE DEFENDANT ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to appoint the Public Administrator to represent the defendant estate in this traffic accident case. Defense counsel represented the insurance company, not the estate:

… [C]ounsel’s affirmation stated that he “was retained by Truck Insurance Exchange to represent the interests of their insured Arthur Ketterer herein.” Under these circumstances, moving counsel lacked authority to represent the defendant estate … . …

In appropriate circumstances, the Supreme Court is empowered to appoint a temporary administrator, in order to “avoid delay and prejudice in a pending action” … . Such a determination is addressed to the broad discretion of the court … . Here, a Surrogate’s Court decree appointed the Public Administrator to represent the estate of Arthur C. Ketterer in a related prior action. That decree did not expressly grant to the Public Administrator the authority to represent the defendant estate in this action. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s cross-motion should have been granted, and we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the appointment of a temporary administrator to represent the defendant in the instant action … . Franco v Estate of Arthur C. Ketterer, 2023 NY Slip Op 00988, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here in this traffic accident case, defense counsel represented the insurer, not the defendant estate. Therefore Supreme Court had the authority, upon plaintiff’s motion, to appoint the Public Administrator to represent the estate.

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION WAS STRUCK BY A PIPE WHICH FELL AS IT WAS BEING HOISTED FROM A TRUCK; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADD THE VIOLATION OF ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS TO THE BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ summary judgment motion in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action should not have been granted and plaintiff’s motion to amend the bill of particulars should have been granted. Plaintiff was unloading pipes from a flatbed truck when a pipe which was being lifted by an excavator came loose and fell on plaintiff’s leg:

“With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to ‘a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'” … . “[A] plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was being hoisted or secured, or that the falling object required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … . A plaintiff must also show that “the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … . * * *

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the bill of particulars to allege certain additional violations of sections of the Industrial Code with regard to the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action. The plaintiff made a showing of merit, and the proposed amendment did not prejudice the defendants and did not involve new factual allegations or raise new theories of liability … . Castano v Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00983, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: As long as no additional facts are involved, a motion to amend the pleadings to add Industrial Code violations (re: a Labor Law 241(5) action) should be granted, even after the note of issue has been filed (absent prejudice).