You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS AUTOMATICALLY STAYED WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED; EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER GRANTING THE ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW DIRECTED DEFENDANT TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR GO AHEAD PRO SE, DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY REQUIRED BY CPLR 321; THEREFORE THE STAY WAS NOT LIFTED AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Simonsen) in this foreclosure action was never given notice to appoint new counsel after his attorney (Sirianni) was suspended and withdrew from the case. Even though, in granting the Sirianni’s motion to withdraw, the court directed defendant to retain new counsel or continue pro se, defendant was never provided with the notice required by CPLR 321(c). Therefore defendant’s motion to vacate the summary judgment order should have been granted:

CPLR 321(c) provides, inter alia, that “[i]f an attorney dies, becomes physically or mentally incapacitated, or is removed, suspended or otherwise becomes disabled at any time before judgment, no further proceeding shall be taken in the action against the party for whom he [or she] appeared, without leave of the court, until thirty days after notice to appoint another attorney has been served upon that party.” “[D]uring the stay imposed by CPLR 321(c), no proceedings against the party will have any adverse effect” … , and “[o]rders or judgments that are rendered in violation of the stay provisions of CPLR 321(c) must be vacated” … . “It lies within the power of the other side to bring the stay to an end by serving a notice on the affected party to appoint new counsel within 30 days” … . The protections of CPLR 321(c) can be waived where the party elects to proceed pro se … . …

This action was automatically stayed by operation of CPLR 321(c) on … the effective date of Sirianni’s suspension from the practice of law. At no point was Simonsen provided, pursuant to CPLR 321(c), with the required notice to appoint another attorney, either by the court or opposing counsel. Moreover, the withdrawal order, which granted Sirianni’s motion pursuant to CPLR 321(b)(2) for leave to withdraw as counsel for Simonsen, had no practical effect as to whether the notice provision of CPLR 321(c) applied to this case … . … [T]he withdrawal order failed to direct service of a notice to appoint another attorney upon Simonsen, and there is no evidence in the record that Simonsen was ever served with a copy of the withdrawal order … . The record is also devoid of any evidence that … Simonsen waived the protections of CPLR 321(c) by electing to proceed pro se. Therefore, the automatic stay was not lifted until Simonsen moved, in effect, to vacate the summary judgment order … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Simonsen, 2022 NY Slip Op 05156, Second Dept 9-14-22

Practice Point: As soon as defendant’s attorney was suspended, the foreclosure action was stayed. Even though the court, in its order granting the attorney’s motion to withdraw, directed defendant to retain new counsel or go ahead pro se, defendant was never given notice to appoint another attorney required by CPLR 321. Therefore the stay was not lifted and defendant’s motion to vacate the summary judgment order should have been granted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DISCOVERY WOULD LEAD TO EVIDENCE ESSENTIAL TO DEFEND AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff motorcyclist’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case was not premature, defendant’s violation of the Vehicle and Traffic law was negligence per se, and the comparative-negligence affirmative defense should have been dismissed. Plaintiff demonstrate defendant made an illegal left turn in front of him and he could not avoid the collision:

… [A] violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law … . “The operator of an oncoming vehicle with the right-of-way is entitled to assume that the opposing operator will yield in compliance with the Vehicle and Traffic Law” … . “[A] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s motion was not premature since the defendants failed to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the plaintiff (see CPLR 3212[f] … ). Higgins v Stelmach, 2022 NY Slip Op 05155, Second Dept 9-13-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff demonstrated defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by making a left turn in front of plaintiff’s motorcycle. Defendant did not demonstrate discovery would lead to evidence essential to defending the motion for summary judgment. The motion therefore was not premature. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment and dismissal of the comparative negligence affirmative defense.

 

, ,

A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHERE, AS HERE, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS DUE AND THE DISCOVERY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action, determined Supreme Court properly found plaintiff offered a sufficient reason for making a late motion for summary judgment, i.e., discovery was incomplete at the time the motion was due, but should not have denied the motion on the ground the discovery was not essential to the motion. The discovery dealt with whether plaintiff was engaged in unauthorized work at the time of the accident, which is a defense to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) actions:

A party may not move for summary judgment after the deadline to do so has expired, “except with leave of court on good cause shown” (CPLR 3212[a]). As a result, a court may not consider a late motion for summary judgment unless the moving party offers “a satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness—rather than simply permitting meritorious, nonprejudicial filings, however tardy” … . “While significant outstanding discovery may, in certain circumstances, constitute good cause for a delay in making a motion for summary judgment,” the movant must establish that the discovery was “essential to its motion” … . This standard generally requires that the discovery be relevant to resolving disputed issues of fact … . Even if the discovery is essential, good cause for the delay will only exist if the party promptly moves for summary judgment after securing such discovery … . Fuczynski v 144 Div., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05151, Second Dept 9-14-22

Practice Point: Good cause for filing a late motion for summary judgment is demonstrated where, as here, the motion was due before discovery was complete and the discovery is essential to the motion.

 

, ,

THE JURY FOUND PLAINTIFF SUFFERED PERMANENT INJURY IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT BUT AWARDED $0 DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES; THE DAMAGES AWARD WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the damages-award in this traffic accident case was against the weight of the evidence. The jury found that plaintiff suffered permanent injuries but awarded nothing for future pain and suffering and future medical expenses. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) should have been granted:

A jury verdict on the issue of damages may be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence only if the evidence on that issue so preponderated in favor of the movant that the jury could not have reached its determination on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Further, while the amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is a question for the jury, and the jury’s determination is entitled to great deference … , a jury award may be set aside if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (see CPLR 5501[c] …).

Where, as here, “the jury . . . concludes that a plaintiff was injured as a result of an accident, the jury’s failure to award damages for pain and suffering is contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and constitutes a material deviation from what would be reasonable compensation” … . Carter v City of New Rochelle, 2022 NY Slip Op 05072, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Where a jury finds plaintiff was permanently injured in an accident but awards nothing for future pain and suffering and future medical expenses, the damages award should be set aside as against the weight of the evidence.

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WARRANTED STRIKING THE ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS; SUPREME COURT HAD IMPOSED LESS SEVERE SANCTIONS, BUT THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED AND IMPOSED THE ULTIMATE SANCTION–A RARE EXAMPLE OF CONDUCT DEEMED “WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-landlords’ answer and counterclaims in this lease-related dispute with the plaintiff-tenant. should have been struck as a sanction for defendants’ repeated failures to comply with discovery demands:

Before imposing the “drastic” remedy of striking a pleading, there must be a clear showing that a party’s failure to comply with discovery is willful and contumacious … .. “Willful and contumacious conduct may be inferred from a party’s repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, coupled with inadequate explanations for the failures to comply, or a failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time” ,,, ,

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s assessment, the defendants’ behavior was willful and contumacious. The tenant demonstrated that the defendants “repeated[ly] fail[ed] to comply with court-ordered discovery” over “an extended period of time[,]” and the court itself found that the defendants offered “inadequate explanations for their failures to comply” … . Under the circumstances presented here, we find that the court should have granted that branch of the tenant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer and counterclaims in its entirety … . 255 Butler Assoc., LLC v 255 Butler, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05067, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: This is a rare case where Supreme Court’s sanctions for defendants’ failures to comply with discovery demands were deemed inadequate. The appellate court stuck defendants’ answer and counterclaims finding defendants’ conduct “willful and contumacious.”

 

DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY ANSWER THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted because defendant did not offer a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely answer:

Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s cross motion, in effect, to vacate its default in answering the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept its late answer … . “A defendant who has failed to timely answer a complaint and who seeks leave to file a late answer must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action” … .  Here, the defendant failed to proffer any excuse, let alone a reasonable excuse, for failing to serve an answer prior to the tolling period created by the executive orders issued by former Governor Andrew Cuomo as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic …  as well as its failure to serve an answer or move to compel acceptance of its late answer for months after the expiration of the executive orders. Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether it sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense … . 195-197 Hewes, LLC v Citimortgage, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05065, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s failure to offer a reasonable excuse for failing to timely answer the complaint required denial of defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment. Apparently the COVID toll of time limits did not suffice.

 

, , ,

EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 FIRST SUBMITTED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; THE EVIDENCE THE BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s proof of mailing of the foreclosure notice first submitted in reply should not have been considered, and plaintiff did not demonstrate it had standing to bring the foreclosure action:

… [T]he affidavits that the plaintiff appended to its moving papers failed to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by first-class mail in accordance with RPAPL 1304. While the plaintiff submitted an additional affidavit in reply, with proof of first-class mailing attached, this evidence should not have been considered in the determination of whether the plaintiff met its prima facie burden, as the issue which the new evidence was intended to address was not an issue raised for the first time in the defendants’ opposition, and the defendants were not afforded an opportunity to submit a surreply in response to the plaintiff’s newly submitted evidence in reply … . …

[Re; standing:] …[T]he plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the 2003 note and 2004 note, which together constituted the consolidated note, and each note was accompanied by an undated purported allonge endorsed to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the purported allonges, each of which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the corresponding note, was “so firmly affixed” to the corresponding note “as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Murray, 2022 NY Slip Op 05110, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Evidence of compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 first submitted in reply should not have been considered.

Practice Point: The bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action.

 

, , ,

ONCE PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISCONTINUED BY STIPULATION, THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT COULD BE AMENDED TO SEEK RECOVERY ON THE NOTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff, after its foreclosure action was discontinued, could amend the foreclosure complaint to seek recovery on the note:

“‘RPAPL 1301(3) . . . prohibits a party from commencing an action at law to recover any part of the mortgage debt while the foreclosure proceeding is pending or has not reached final judgment, without leave of the court in which the foreclosure action was brought'” ( … see RPAPL 1301[3]). Conversely, “‘where a foreclosure action is no longer pending and did not result in a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, the plaintiff is not precluded from commencing a separate action without leave of the court'” … .

Here, pursuant to the so-ordered stipulation and the plaintiff’s release of the mortgage, the cause of action to foreclose the mortgage was, in effect, discontinued, without the entry of any judgment in the plaintiff’s favor … . Since the cause of action to foreclose the mortgage was no longer pending, the plaintiff was not precluded from seeking to recover on the note by RPAPL 1301(3), “‘a statute which must be strictly construed'” … .

Furthermore, “there is no reason the plaintiff could not seek such relief by seeking leave to amend its complaint, rather than by commencing a new action” … . Stewart Tit. Ins. Co. v Zaltsman, 2022 NY Slip Op 05107, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Here the foreclosure action was discontinued and plaintiff was allowed to amend the foreclosure complaint to seek recovery on the note.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A STATUS-CONFERENCE SCHEDULING ORDER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR THE “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint in this foreclosure action based upon plaintiff’s failure to file a motion for judgment of foreclosure by a specified date:

… [A] status conference order was entered … which … directed the plaintiff to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by December 20, 2017, and warned that “failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.” The plaintiff failed to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale as directed by the status conference order. … [T]he Supreme Court, … sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. …

“‘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 directive of the status conference order was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the action … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Stuart, 2022 NY Slip Op 05055, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Generally, appellate courts will reverse a “sua sponte” dismissal of a complaint.

 

,

ALTHOUGH NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MICHIGAN CUSTODY ORDER; FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION AND HELD A HEARING ON THE CHILD’S SAFETY; THE CHILD WAS IN NEW YORK DURING FATHER’S PARENTING TIME WHEN FATHER BROUGHT A NEGLECT/CUSTODY PETITION IN NEW YORK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined, although Family Court properly dismissed father’s neglect/custody petition on the ground New York did not have jurisdiction over the Michigan custody order, Family Court should have ordered a hearing about the child’s safety pursuant to the court’s temporary emergency jurisdiction. The child was in New York during father’s parenting time at the time father filed the petition:

Under the UCCJEA [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act], a New York court has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination under certain limited circumstances … . Here, the parties agreed that, as Michigan is the home state of the child, none of these statutory factors apply. Nevertheless, Domestic Relations Law § 76-c provides that “New York courts have ‘temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child, a sibling or parent of the child'” … .

The AFC [attorney for the child] and the father contend that the allegations set forth in the petition were sufficient to warrant Family Court to conduct a hearing. We agree. Matter of Chester HH. v Angela GG., 2022 NY Slip Op 05002, Third Dept 8-18-22

Practice Point: Although New York did not have jurisdiction over a Michigan custody order and therefore properly dismissed father’s neglect/custody petition brought in New York when the child was in New York, Family Court should have exercised its temporary emergency jurisdiction and held a hearing on the child’s safety.

 

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