You are here: / Debtor-Creditor
,

Accelerated Relief Pursuant to CPLR 3213 (Judgment In Lieu of Complaint) Should Not Have Been Granted—the Document at Issue Did Not Include a Promise to Pay On Demand or at a Definite Time

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted accelerated relief pursuant to CPLR 3213 because the document describing the loan did not include a provision requiring payment on demand or at a definite time:

Pursuant to CPLR 3213, a party may obtain accelerated relief by moving for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, provided that the action is “based upon an instrument for the payment of money only or upon any judgment” (CPLR 3213…). “A promissory note is an instrument for the payment of money only, provided that it contains an unconditional promise by the borrower to pay the lender over a stated period of time” … . An instrument does not qualify for accelerated relief under CPLR 3213 “if outside proof is needed, other than simple proof of nonpayment or a similar de minimis deviation from the face of the document” … .

Therefore, a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 3213 by showing that the defendant executed the subject instrument, the instrument contains an unconditional promise to repay the plaintiff upon demand or at a definite time, and the defendant failed to pay in accordance with the instrument’s terms … .

Here, the record does not support the Supreme Court’s determination that the Document reflects the defendant’s unconditional promise to repay the borrowed sum upon demand or at definite time … . Von Fricken v Schaefer, 2014 NY Slip Op 04479, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

 

, , ,

Constructive Trust Cause of Action Sufficiently Pled/Dismissal “With Prejudice” Not Allowed—Doctrine of Res Judicata Does Not Apply—a Dismissal for Failure to State a Cause of Action Is Not On the Merits

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the constructive trust cause of action.  The court further determined that the conversion, constructive fraud and breach of contract causes of action were properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, but should not have been dismissed “with prejudice.”  With respect to the constructive trust and the dismissal with prejudice, the court wrote:

The equitable remedy of a constructive trust may be imposed ” [w]hen property has been acquired in such circumstances that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest'” … . “The elements of a cause of action to impose a constructive trust are (1) the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship, (2) a promise, (3) a transfer in reliance thereon, and (4) unjust enrichment” … . “To achieve equity and avoid unjust enrichment, the courts apply these factors flexibly rather than rigidly” … .

Here, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship with the defendants. The parties were related through marriage, and the plaintiff and Atanasio, along with their respective spouses, pooled their resources in order to purchase the residential property and the boat … . Further, the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the elements of a promise and a transfer in reliance on the promise. He alleged that, before he sold the defendants his interest in the property in November 2005, the defendants promised to reimburse him for the expenditures he made for the property and boat as long as he continued making those payments for one year after the sale of his interest. In reliance on this alleged promise and his confidential relationship with the defendants, he transferred his interest in the property to the defendants, and thereafter continued to make expenditures in connection with the property and boat. Finally, his allegations that he made all expenditures for the property and boat during a period of 7½ years, and that the defendants refused to reimburse him, despite being co-owners of the property and boat and notwithstanding their promise, were sufficient to plead the unjust enrichment element necessary to the imposition of a constructive … .

…Supreme Court, upon dismissing the second, third, and fourth causes of action, improperly did so “with prejudice.” A dismissal for failure to state a cause of action based on the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading is not a dismissal on the merits, and does not bar the adequate repleading of the claim in a subsequent action… . Canzona v Atanasio, 2014 NY Slip Op 04458, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

In a related case, the Second Department noted that, because a dismissal for failure to state a cause of action is not on the merits, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply.  Canzona v Atanasio, 2014 NY Slip Op 04459, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

 

,

General Language—“Disposition”—Limited in Scope by More Specific Words—“Sale or Transfer”

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the rules of contract interpretation did not allow the collection of a “transaction fee” by plaintiff financial advisor with respect to the defendant’s purchase of notes in anticipation of the purchase of a mine.  When the financing for the mine fell through, the defendant sold back the notes in accordance with the purchase agreement with the seller of the notes.  The plaintiff sought a “transaction fee” for that transaction:

…[T]he motion court unreasonably construed the parties’ agreement in arriving at the conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to a “transaction fee” in connection with defendant’s aborted acquisition of a participation interest in the notes. The letter agreement provides that plaintiff is entitled to a “transaction fee” following the consummation or closing of a “transaction,” which it defines as the “sale, transfer or other disposition . . . [of] a portion of the assets, businesses or securities of [defendant].” The acquisition in question was admittedly not a “sale” or “transfer.” Nor can it be considered a “disposition,” as plaintiff contends. The term “disposition” does not appear in isolation in the agreement, but as a catch-all at the end of the phrase “sale, transfer or other disposition.” Thus, under the principle of ejusdem generis, the general language “or other disposition” must be construed as limited in scope by the more specific words “sale” and “transfer” that preceded it … . Miller Tabak + Co LLC v Senetek PLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 04418, 1st Dept 6-17-14

 

,

English Judgment Enforceable by New York Courts Without Demonstration of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or Ownership of Property in New York

The First Department determined a judgment rendered in England was enforceable by New York courts without any need to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying matter or the ownership of property in New York.  In addition, the court noted that the imposition of post-judgment interest on the foreign judgment by New York courts was found appropriate:

…New York adopted the Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act as CPLR article 53 …, which was intended to codify and clarify existing case law applicable to the recognition of foreign country money judgments based on principles of international comity, “and, more importantly, to promote the efficient enforcement of New York judgments abroad by assuring foreign jurisdictions that their judgments would receive streamlined enforcement here” … .

Generally, a foreign country judgment is “conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money” (CPLR 5303), “unless a ground for nonrecognition under CPLR 5304 is applicable” … . CPLR 5304(a) provides that “[a]; foreign country judgment is not conclusive if the judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law” (subd [1]) or “the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant” (subd [2]). CPLR 5304(b) permits nonrecognition on eight other grounds. Significantly, “in proceeding under article 53, the judgment creditor does not seek any new relief against the judgment debtor, but instead merely asks the court to perform its ministerial function of recognizing the foreign country money judgment and converting it into a New York judgment” … . Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Saad Trading, 2014 NY Slip Op 03767, 1st Dept 5-27-14

 

Equitable Subrogation in the Context of Funds from One Mortgage Loan Used to Pay Off Another Explained

The Second Department explained the doctrine of equitable subrogation. Plaintiff had given two valid mortgages to one bank, and another bank subsequently used a portion of the proceeds of its loan to satisfy those mortgages:

Under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, where the “property of one person is used in discharging an obligation owed by another or a lien upon the property of another, under such circumstances that the other would be unjustly enriched by the retention of the benefit thus conferred, the former is entitled to be subrogated to the position of the obligee or lien-holder” … . Harris v Thompson, 2014 NY Slip Op 03487, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

,

Email Acknowledging Debt Raised Question of Fact About Whether Period of Limitations Was Restarted by the Email

The Second Department determined an e-mail acknowledging plaintiff’s entitlement to a commission raised a triable issue of fact about whether the statute of limitations was restarted:

The defendants made a prima facie showing that the applicable six-year statute of limitations expired before the plaintiff commenced this action (see CPLR 213…). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether an email message, purportedly sent by the defendant …, acknowledged the plaintiff’s entitlement to a brokerage commission and demonstrated the defendants’ intent to pay it, thus restarting the statute of limitations (see General Obligations Law § 17-101…). ” Whether a purported acknowledgment is sufficient to restart the running of a period of limitations depends on the circumstances of the individual case'” … . Here, a trial is necessary to resolve this issue. Georg Tsunis Real Estate Inc v Benedict, 2014 NY Slip Op 02899, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

, , ,

County Could Not Avoid or Delay Payment of Property Tax Refund on Financial Hardship Grounds

The Second Department determined the county did not make a sufficient showing of “fiscal chaos” to allow it to avoid immediate payment of a refund the  overpayment of property taxes:

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the decisions of the Court of Appeals … do not stand for the proposition that a court may decline to issue an award of damages or refunds against a municipality whenever such award will result in financial hardship … . “Instead, these cases stand for the more limited proposition that, where a municipality has reasonably relied upon a widespread and longstanding practice (as in Matter of Hellerstein) or a statute is later invalidated (as in Foss), and where applying the invalidation retroactively would call into question a settled assessment roll or property rights based thereon,’ a court may exercise its discretion by giving its holding only prospective application” … . No such situation is present in the instant case. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court properly rejected the appellants’ “fiscal chaos” defense, and granted the petitioner’s motion to compel the appellants to satisfy obligations that they incurred in connection with the stipulation of settlement and, thus, to calculate and pay the refund owed to it. Matter of Long Is Automotive Group Inc v Board of Assessors of Nassau County, 2014 Slip Op 02586, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

, ,

Health Service Provider’s Action to Recoup Overpayment of a Surcharge Subject to Six-Year Statute of Limitations

The Second Department determined a statutory provision making payment of a surcharge re: certain hospital services subject to an audit within six years imposed a six-year statute of limitations upon any attempt to recoup overpayment of the surcharge:

The statutory text of Public Health Law § 2807-j(8-a)(a) provides that “[p]ayments and reports . . . shall be subject to audit by the commissioner for a period of six years following the close of the calendar year in which such payments and reports are due, after which such payments shall be deemed final and not subject to further adjustment or reconciliation.” Giving effect to the plain meaning of the text, that section of the statute provides that all payments are deemed final and not subject to further adjustment or reconciliation after the period of six years following the close of the calendar year in which they are due. Thus, the clear language of that section establishes that the determination of the DOH to apply a six-year limitations period to a provider’s administrative application for a refund of an overpayment was not arbitrary and capricious or irrational. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the absence of any reference in Public Health Law § 2807-j(8)(c) to a limitations period specifically applicable to administrative requests for a refund of overpayments does not compel the conclusion that the six-year limitations period contained in Public Health Law § 2807-j(8-a)(a) is inapplicable to such requests.  Matter of New York Med & Diagnostic Ctr Inc v Shah, 2014 NY Slip Op 02592, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

, ,

​Monetary Award to Compensate Fraud Victims Ordered by a Czech Court in a Criminal Fraud Prosecution Entitled to Enforcement in New York as a “Foreign Country Judgment”

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined a judgment in a Czech criminal proceeding ordering a monetary award to compensate fraud victims was entitled to recognition in New York pursuant to CPLR 5301(b) (a matter of first impression):

CPLR 5301(b) defines a “foreign country judgment” as “any judgment of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money, other than a judgment for taxes, a fine or other penalty, or a judgment for support in matrimonial or family matters.” The judgment sought to be enforced in this case provides restitution …, directing … the criminal defendant, to pay a specific sum as “compensation for damages to the victim” of his scheme to defraud. Clearly, the judgment is not one for taxes or support obligations; nor is it a fine. Thus, the question is whether a judgment providing compensation to a crime victim (here, a victim of criminal fraud) should be regarded as a “penalty” and denied enforcement.

Where, as here, the purpose of a monetary judgment is to compensate the victim for actual damages, it represents “reparation to one aggrieved” … . Harvardsky Prumyslovy Holding AS -V Likvidaci v Kozeny, 2014 NY Slip Op 02250, 1st Dept 4-1-14

 

,

“Labor or Services” Complaint Not Specific Enough to Trigger Specific-Answer Requirement Under CPLR 3016

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff nursing home’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3016 was properly denied.  Defendant’s late husband was in plaintiff nursing home for the last 15 months of his life.  Plaintiff sued for $125,265.54 in unpaid invoices. The court determined the complaint did not set forth with sufficient specificity the reasonable value and agreed price of each service provided.  Therefore the statutory requirement for a specific answer to each allegation of service was not triggered:

CPLR 3016 (f) provides that, in an action involving the -2- 205 CA 13-01681 “performing of labor or services,” the plaintiff “may set forth and number in his verified complaint the items of his claim and the reasonable value or agreed price of each.” If the plaintiff does so, “the defendant by his verified answer shall indicate specifically those items he disputes and whether in respect of delivery or performance, reasonable value or agreed price.” “To meet the requirements of CPLR 3016 (f), a complaint must contain a listing of the goods or services provided, with enough detail that it may readily be examined and its correctness tested entry by entry” … . If the complaint lacks sufficient specificity, the defendant may serve a general denial answer … .Here, we conclude that the complaint failed to meet the specificity standards of CPLR 3016 (f) and thus “did not trigger a duty on defendant[’]s part to dispute each item specifically” … .  Waterfront Operations Associates LLC… v Candido, 205, 4th Dept 3-28-14