You are here: / Judges
,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the case for neglect to prosecute in the absence of the prerequisites mandated by CPLR 3216:

… [T]he court directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue within 90 days, and warned that “[i]f plaintiff does not file a note of issue within 90 days this action is deemed dismissed without further order of the Court (CPLR 3216).” Five months later … the court, sua sponte, in effect, directed dismissal of the action … . …

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the statutory preconditions to dismissal, as articulated in CPLR 3216, are met” … . “Effective January 1, 2015, the Legislature amended, in several significant respects, the statutory preconditions to dismissal under CPLR 3216” … . One such precondition is that where, as here, a written demand to resume prosecution of the action is made by the court, “the demand shall set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … . Here, the certification order did not set forth any specific conduct constituting neglect by the plaintiff … .

Additionally, before issuing an order dismissing the case based on a party’s failure to comply with the 90-day demand, the court must give the party notice so that the party has an opportunity to “show a justifiable excuse for the delay and a good and meritorious cause of action” … . Here, the Supreme Court failed to give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to, in effect, directing dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 … . Sadowski v W. David Harmon, 2019 NY Slip Op 02918, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint for neglect to prosecute without following the procedure required by CPLR 3216:

The Supreme Court should not have, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3216, sua sponte, dismissed the amended complaint, as the statutory preconditions to dismissal were not met … . A court cannot dismiss an action, sua sponte, pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) unless the conditions set forth in CPLR 3216(b) have been met, including the requirement that: “[t]he court or party seeking such relief . . . shall have served a written demand . . . requiring the party against whom such relief is sought to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within ninety days after receipt of such demand, and further stating that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him or her for unreasonably neglecting to proceed” (CPLR 3216[b][3] [emphasis added] …). Moreover, the court should not have administratively dismissed the amended complaint without further notice to the parties … . Marinello v Marinello, 2019 NY Slip Op 02697, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

, , ,

JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF NOTICE AND A CHANCE TO BE HEARD, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint as abandoned without giving plaintiff a chance to be heard in this foreclosure action:

… [B]y notice of motion dated August 15, 2014, the plaintiff … moved, inter alia, to extend its time to serve a copy of the order of reference with notice of entry … , nunc pro tunc, to March 23, 2007 (hereinafter the second extension of time motion). In an order dated February 26, 2015 (hereinafter the February 2015 order), the Supreme Court denied the second extension of time motion, and, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint as abandoned, noting, inter alia, that “[t]he order of reference at issue was signed in 2007” and the appointed referee was no longer on the fiduciary list. …

The Supreme Court’s sua sponte determination to direct dismissal of the complaint deprived the plaintiff of notice and opportunity to be heard and amounted to a denial of the plaintiff’s due process rights (see CPLR 3216 … ). Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to vacate the February 2015 order. Chase Home Fin., LLC v Plaut, 2019 NY Slip Op 02494, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED FIVE HOURS AWAY FROM THE COURT AND HIS ATTORNEY, REPEATED REQUESTS TO MOVE DEFENDANT CLOSER WERE GRANTED BUT NOT COMPLIED WITH, DEFENDANT MOVED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AT SENTENCING, GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY DEFENDANT HAD EFFECTIVELY BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, INQUIRY INTO THE VOLUNTARINESS OF OF THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the sentencing judge should have inquired into the voluntariness of defendant’s guilty plea before accepting it. The defendant had been housed more than one hundred miles from the court and his attorney. Repeated requests to move the defendant closer to allow consultation with his attorney were granted but not complied with. When the court set the matter down for trial anyway, the defendant pled guilty:

The Supreme Court ordered that the defendant be moved to Rikers Island, or at a minimum, a correctional facility closer to the court. The court issued numerous orders over the following two weeks directing that the defendant be moved, none of which was complied with. Each appearance required the defendant to travel at least five hours each way. Defense counsel continued to argue that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision was violating the defendant’s constitutional rights to consult with his attorney and to defend this case. The court noted that it would be nearly impossible to hold a jury and try the case under these conditions. The court nevertheless stated that the trial would commence, regardless of where the defendant was housed. The very next court date, the defendant agreed to plead guilty.

Two weeks later, at the sentencing, the defendant made an application to withdraw his plea, contending that he had entered the plea involuntarily, given the circumstances and his lack of access to his counsel. The Supreme Court denied the application without engaging in any inquiry of the defendant, other than to comment on the favorable plea offer secured by defense counsel.\

Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court was able to make an informed determination as to the question of the voluntary nature of the defendant’s plea without conducting such an inquiry. The record substantiates the defendant’s claim that his plea was effectively coerced by the ongoing violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and, thus, a genuine factual issue as to the voluntariness of the plea existed that could only be resolved after a hearing. Under these circumstances, the court should have conducted a hearing to explore the defendant’s allegations in order to make an informed determination … . People v Hollmond, 2019 NY Slip Op 02354, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

, , , ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE, CORPORATE OFFICERS PROPERLY SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion to dismiss the trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition causes of action was properly denied. The court noted that the complaint properly alleged torts by defendants in their individual capacities without alleging facts supporting piercing the corporate veil. The Second Department held that the judge, sua sponte, should not have granted the preliminary injunction:

” [P]reliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy which will not be granted unless a clear right thereto is established under the law and the undisputed facts upon the moving papers, and the burden of showing an undisputed right rests upon the movant'” … . “As a general rule, the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” … . “In exercising that discretion, the Supreme Court must determine if the moving party has established: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, and (3) a balance of the equities in favor of the injunction” … . ” [A]bsent extraordinary circumstances, a preliminary injunction will not issue where to do so would grant the movant the ultimate relief to which he or she would be entitled in a final judgment'” … .

The plaintiff did not request a preliminary injunction  … [T]he record in this case lacks evidence establishing, among other things, irreparable harm or extraordinary circumstances warranting a preliminary injunction that would, in effect, depart from the status quo and grant the plaintiff its ultimate relief … . The evidence at this stage further fails to demonstrate that the plaintiff possesses a likelihood of success on the merits … . The court therefore improvidently exercised its discretion in sua sponte awarding preliminary injunctive relief to the plaintiff. Emanuel Mizrahi, DDS, P.C. v Angela Andretta, DMD, P.C., 2019 NY Slip Op 02315, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DRAWN AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST FATHER BASED UPON FATHER’S FAILURE TO CALL HIS GIRLFRIEND AS A WITNESS WITHOUT FIRST INFORMING FATHER AND GIVING FATHER A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the judge should not have drawn an adverse inference against father for his failure to call his girlfriend as a witness without first informing father and giving father a chance to explain. The error was deemed harmless however:

“A party is entitled to a missing witness charge when the party establishes that an uncalled witness possessing information on a material issue would be expected to provide noncumulative testimony in favor of the opposing party and is under the control of and available to that party” … . “The party seeking a missing witness inference has the initial burden of setting forth the basis for the request as soon as practicable . . . to[, inter alia,] avoid substantial possibilities of surprise” … . Here, in its written decision, “[t]he court sua sponte drew a negative inference based on the [father’s] failure to call [his girlfriend] as a witness, and failed to advise [him] that it intended to do so” … . Thus, the father “lacked the opportunity to explain [his] failure to call [his girlfriend] as a witness, or to discuss whether [his girlfriend] was even available to testify or under [his] control” … . We conclude, however, that the error did not affect the result  … . Matter of Liam M.J. (Cyril M.J.), 2019 NY Slip Op 02207, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE, CUSTODY AND VISITATION CASE, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, sending the matter back to Family Court, determined Family Court did not make the requisite findings of fact in this family offense, custody and visitation case:

… [W]e agree with the father that Family Court failed to adequately set forth its essential findings of fact (see CPLR 4213 [b]; Family Ct Act § 165 [a] …). …[T]he court failed to specify the family offense upon which the order of protection was predicated … . … [T]he court failed to “set forth its analysis of those factors that traditionally affect the best interests of a child, namely, the relative fitness of each party, each parent’s ability to provide for the emotional and intellectual development of the child, the ability to provide financially for the child, the quality of the home environment, the length of time and stability of prior custodial arrangements, [and] the need of a child to reside with siblings[, if any] . . . As a result, we are unable to review [the court’s] ultimate factual finding regarding each of those factors and the weight it placed upon each factor relative to the best interests of the child[ ]” … . Under the circumstances of these cases, we decline to exercise our discretion to make the requisite findings … . Matter of Benson v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 02221, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

,

SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITIONAL ORDER OF PRECLUSION SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE BEYOND THE PENALTY DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the sanction imposed for plaintiff’s failure to turn over audio files and transcripts she was apparently relying upon to prove employment discrimination should not have gone beyond the terms of the conditional order of preclusion:

“A conditional order of preclusion requires a party to provide certain discovery by a date certain, or face the sanctions specified in the order” … . ” With this conditioning, the court relieves itself of the unrewarding inquiry into whether a party’s resistance was willful'” … . “When a plaintiff fails to timely comply with a conditional order of preclusion, the conditional order becomes absolute” … .

… [W]here, as here, a conditional order of preclusion specifies a penalty for the failure to comply, absent a change in circumstances, it is inappropriate for the court to impose a harsher penalty … . The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in barring the plaintiff from offering any evidence for any claim premised on the introduction of or which relies on the audio files the plaintiff failed to produce. Instead, the appropriate sanction was the one set forth in the conditional order of preclusion, which precluded the plaintiff from using the audio files and corresponding transcripts at trial unless she produced these items by a date certain, which she failed to do. Felice v Metropolitan Diagnostic Imaging Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02067, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, NO SUCH MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the city in this sidewalk slip and fall case. No such motion was before the court:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the City, which did not move for such relief. “A court may search the record and grant summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party only with respect to a cause of action or issue that is the subject of the motions before the court” … . Since no party made any motion with respect to the plaintiff’s direct cause of action against the City contained in the amended complaint, the court should not have granted relief with respect to that cause of action … . Cerbone v Lauriano, 2019 NY Slip Op 02056, Second Dept 3-20-29

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SUA SPONTE VACATE A CONSENT ORDER IN THIS SUPPORT PROCEEDING, VACATION OF THE CONSENT ORDER AND THE RESULTING COMMITMENT ORDER REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court did have the authority to issue a sua sponte order vacating a consent order:

Upon the father’s admission to a willful violation of the support order and upon the father’s representation that he was employed, an order of disposition was entered upon the parties’ consent, finding the father to be in willful violation of the support order and committing him to a term of incarceration of five months, but suspending his commitment on the condition that he complied with the support order (hereinafter the consent order). Shortly after the consent order was entered, the Family Court received a telephone call, ostensibly from the father’s purported employer, informing the court that the father was not, in fact, employed. The court, over the father’s objection, sua sponte issued an order vacating the consent order (hereinafter the sua sponte order). The court then proceeded to a willfulness hearing, at the conclusion of which it issued the second order of disposition, finding the father to be in willful violation of the support order and directing that he be committed to the Orange County Jail for a period of six months unless he paid the purge amount of $19,839 (hereinafter the commitment order). …

As the father correctly contends, the Family Court lacked authority to issue the sua sponte order vacating the consent order (see CPLR 5019[a]) …). Moreover, the court issued the sua sponte order on the basis of unsworn statements made during a telephone call between the court and the father’s purported employer … . Accordingly, the sua sponte order must be reversed, and the commitment order, which was based in part on the sua sponte order, must be reversed as well. Matter of Schiavone v Mannese, 2019 NY Slip Op 01419, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

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