You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

MATTER ERRONEOUSLY TRANSFERRED TO A COURT WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (CIVIL COURT) CAN BE RETRANSFERRED TO THE CORRECT COURT (SUPREME COURT) AFTER JUDGMENT, THE CIVIL COURT JUDGMENT IS VOID AND CANNOT BE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, addressing two issues of first impression, determined: (1) a matter erroneously transferred to a court which did not have subject matter jurisdiction (Civil Court) can be retransferred to the correct court (Supreme Court); and (2) after the matter is retransferred the error cannot be remedied in Supreme Court by adopting the disposition of the Civil Court, which is void. The fact that the Civil Court judge was an Acting Supreme Court Justice did not afford subject matter jurisdiction to the Civil Court:

While Judge Marrazzo, by virtue of his designation as an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, would have been authorized to preside over the trial of this matter had it been pending in the Supreme Court, the same cannot be said for the trial in the Civil Court where the Administrative Order had no administrative or substantive relevance.

Where subject matter jurisdiction is concerned, courts, including our own, may not cut corners. As a matter of both constitutional adherence and public policy, the Appellate Division must guard against courts acting outside of their subject matter jurisdiction, even if they do so unwittingly, in good faith, or in furtherance of judicial economy. Accordingly, we hold that the duties of an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court directed to matters pending in the Supreme Court operate only as to actions and proceedings pending in that particular court, and not for cases litigated elsewhere. …

… [S]ince the Civil Court was without jurisdiction to try the instant matter, rendering the trial and judgment void, its findings of fact and conclusions of law cannot as a matter of comity, res judicata, law of the case, or otherwise, be recognized by the Supreme Court upon its CPLR 325(b) removal of the action, and cannot provide a basis for the Supreme Court judgment presently on appeal. Caffrey v North Arrow Abstract & Settlement Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01043, Second Dept 2-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, MATTER ERRONEOUSLY TRANSFERRED TO A COURT WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (CIVIL COURT) CAN BE RETRANSFERRED TO THE CORRECT COURT (SUPREME COURT) AFTER JUDGMENT, THE CIVIL COURT JUDGMENT IS VOID AND CANNOT BE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT))/JURISDICTION, SUBJECT MATTER (MATTER ERRONEOUSLY TRANSFERRED TO A COURT WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (CIVIL COURT) CAN BE RETRANSFERRED TO THE CORRECT COURT (SUPREME COURT) AFTER JUDGMENT, THE CIVIL COURT JUDGMENT IS VOID AND CANNOT BE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 325(b) (SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, MATTER ERRONEOUSLY TRANSFERRED TO A COURT WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (CIVIL COURT) CAN BE RETRANSFERRED TO THE CORRECT COURT (SUPREME COURT) AFTER JUDGMENT, THE CIVIL COURT JUDGMENT IS VOID AND CANNOT BE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT))/SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION  (MATTER ERRONEOUSLY TRANSFERRED TO A COURT WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (CIVIL COURT) CAN BE RETRANSFERRED TO THE CORRECT COURT (SUPREME COURT) AFTER JUDGMENT, THE CIVIL COURT JUDGMENT IS VOID AND CANNOT BE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT))

MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to accept an answer which was two days late should have been granted pursuant to CPLR 2004:

CPLR 2004 provides that, “[e]xcept where otherwise expressly prescribed by law, the court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown, whether the application for extension is made before or after the expiration of the time fixed.” Given the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, “the Supreme Court may compel a plaintiff to accept an untimely answer (see CPLR 2004, 3012[d]) where the record demonstrates that there was only a short delay in appearing or answering the complaint, that there was no willfulness on the part of the defendant, that there would be no prejudice to the plaintiff, and that a potentially meritorious defense exists”… . Here, in light of the defendant’s brief and unintentional delay in serving its answer, the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff, and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 to compel the plaintiff to accept its late answer … . Baldwin Rte. 6, LLC v Bernad Creations, Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 01039, Second Dept 2-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ANSWER (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2004 (MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

FLAWED ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE STATEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WERE KNOWN TO THE NOTARIES, CAN BE CURED BY AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY THE NOTARIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Austin, determined Surrogate’s Court properly denied the wife’s (Irene’s) motion to dismiss the husband’s estate’s petition to invalidate Irene’s notice of spousal election. Irene and her husband who had both been married before, signed a prenuptial agreement that they would not make a claim to each other’s estates. There was no question both parties signed the agreement, but essential language was missing from the acknowledgments, taken by their respective attorneys as notaries. Both attorneys submitted affidavits stating that the signers were known to them at the time of signing, the information missing from the acknowledgments.  The question came down to whether, by submitting the prenuptial agreement with the invalid acknowledgments, Irene demonstrated conclusively that the petition could not succeed. The Second Department determined the flaw in the acknowledgments can be cured, and the motion to dismiss was therefore properly denied:

​

In Galetta v Galetta (21 NY3d 186), the Court of Appeals left unanswered the question of whether a defective acknowledgment of a prenuptial agreement could be remedied by extrinsic proof provided by the notary public who took a party’s signature. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that such proof can remedy a defective acknowledgment. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Surrogate’s Court, which denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss a petition to invalidate her notice of spousal election. Matter of Koegel, 2018 NY Slip Op 00833, Second Dept 2-7-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (FLAWED ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE STATEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WERE KNOWN TO THE NOTARIES, CAN BE CURED BY AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY THE NOTARIES (SECOND DEPT))/PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, FLAWED ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE STATEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WERE KNOWN TO THE NOTARIES, CAN BE CURED BY AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY THE NOTARIES (SECOND DEPT))/NOTARIES (FLAWED ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE STATEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WERE KNOWN TO THE NOTARIES, CAN BE CURED BY AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY THE NOTARIES (SECOND DEPT))/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (NOTARIES, TRUSTS AND ESTATES, LAWED ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE STATEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WERE KNOWN TO THE NOTARIES, CAN BE CURED BY AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY THE NOTARIES (SECOND DEPT))/FAMILY LAW (PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS, FLAWED ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE STATEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WERE KNOWN TO THE NOTARIES, CAN BE CURED BY AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY THE NOTARIES (SECOND DEPT))

CIVIL CONSPIRACY CANNOT BE BROUGHT AS AN INDEPENDENT TORT IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in affirming the dismissal of a complaint, noted that a civil conspiracy cause of action cannot be brought as a stand-alone tort in New York. There must be a conspiracy to commit an underlying tort. Because the underlying tort cause of action here, fraud, was dismissed, the civil conspiracy must also be dismissed:

​

New York does not recognize civil conspiracy to commit a tort as an independent cause of action … . However, a plaintiff may plead the existence of a conspiracy in order to connect the actions of the individual defendants with an actionable, underlying tort, and establish that those actions were part of a common scheme … . Under New York law, “[i]n order to properly plead a cause of action to recover damages for civil conspiracy, the plaintiff must allege a cognizable tort, coupled with an agreement between the conspirators regarding the tort, and an overt action in furtherance of the agreement” … . Here, since the underlying tort of fraud was properly dismissed, the cause of action alleging civil conspiracy to commit fraud was also properly dismissed, since it stands or falls with the underlying tort … . McSpedon v Levine, 2018 NY Slip Op 00826, Second Dept 2-7-18

INTENTIONAL TORTS (CIVIL CONSPIRACY CANNOT BE BROUGHT AS AN INDEPENDENT TORT IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL CONSPIRACY (CIVIL CONSPIRACY CANNOT BE BROUGHT AS AN INDEPENDENT TORT IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT))/CONSPIRACY, CIVIL (CIVIL CONSPIRACY CANNOT BE BROUGHT AS AN INDEPENDENT TORT IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT))

TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY IS A HYBRID AGENCY PLAYING BOTH JUDICIAL AND PROSECUTORIAL ROLES, ALTHOUGH DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL ROLE ARE EXEMPT FROM FOIL DISCLOSURE, DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PROSECUTORIAL ROLE ARE NOT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department sent the matter back to Supreme Court to determine whether documents sought by petitioner under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) were exempt from disclosure. The documents (re: the photo speed monitoring system) are held by the Nassau Court Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (TPVA). Supreme Court found that the TPVA was exempt from as part of the judiciary. However, although part of the TPVA’s role is judicial, there are aspects of the agency which are prosecutorial. Supreme Court should have reviewed the documents to see whether the judiciary exemption applies to all the requested documents:

​

FOIL applies to “agency” records, but its definition of “agency” expressly excludes the “judiciary” … . FOIL defines “judiciary” as “the courts of the state, including any municipal or district court, whether or not of record” … , the Court of Appeals stated that for purposes of jurisdiction over certain matters, the TPVA is “an arm of the District Court,” so that matters pending in the TPVA are considered to be pending in the District Court. Accordingly, it is indisputable that, at least for certain purposes, the TPVA is part of the judiciary. The Supreme Court erred, however, in holding that the TPVA is entirely judicial and thus not subject to FOIL at all. The Court of Appeals expressly recognized in Matter of Dolce v Nassau County Traffic & Parking Violations Agency that the TPVA is a “hybrid agency that exercises both prosecutorial and adjudicatory responsibilities,” and that the prosecutorial function is “distinct from the adjudicatory function” (id. at 498). Accordingly, to the extent that a TPVA record concerns the nonadjudicatory responsibilities of the TPVA, it is not exempt from disclosure under the definition of “agency” in Public Officers Law § 86(3). Without examination of the records that the petitioner seeks, the Supreme Court cannot make a determination as to whether they are exempt from disclosure as records of the “judiciary” … . Matter of Law Offs. of Cory H. Morris v County of Nassau, 2018 NY Slip Op 00835, Second Dept 2-7-18

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY IS A HYBRID AGENCY PLAYING BOTH JUDICIAL AND PROSECUTORIAL ROLES, ALTHOUGH DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL ROLE ARE EXEMPT FROM FOIL, DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PROSECUTORIAL ROLE ARE NOT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY (FOIL, TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY IS A HYBRID AGENCY PLAYING BOTH JUDICIAL AND PROSECUTORIAL ROLES, ALTHOUGH DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL ROLE ARE EXEMPT FROM FOIL, DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PROSECUTORIAL ROLE ARE NOT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO HOLD A DE NOVO PAROLE HEARING AS ORDERED BY THE ARTICLE 78 COURT, THE EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT CALL FOR A HEARING IN THIS CONTEXT, ONLY AN INTERVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the chairperson of the Board of Parole should not have been held in civil contempt for a purported failure to follow Supreme Court’s order. After an inmate contested the denial of parole in an Article 78 action, Supreme Court granted the inmate’s petition and ordered the parole board to hold a de novo parole “hearing.” The parole board conducted a parole “interview.” The inmate then moved to hold the parole board chairperson in contempt for failing to conduct a “hearing.” The opinion is comprehensive and too detailed to fairly summarize here. In a nutshell, the Second Department determined the Executive Law does not call for a “hearing” in this context, only an “interview:”

​

Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Executive Law governing the Board’s procedures, we conclude that the court was without authority to order a de novo evidentiary “hearing,” as the petitioner was only entitled to a de novo parole release “interview” and review (see Executive Law § 259-i[2][a][i]). Applying our well-established contempt jurisprudence, it cannot be said that the language employed in the judgment … , was clear and unambiguous since the Board could have reasonably understood and interpreted the judgment as directing it to conduct a de novo interview consistent with the requirements of the controlling statutory language. Contempt findings are inappropriate where, as here, there can be a legitimate disagreement about what the terms of an order or judgment actually mean … . The Board endeavored to comply with the judgment … , by providing a de novo parole release interview with a reconsideration of the petitioner’s record consistent with its statutory mandate under the Executive Law and consistent with its common practices. Matter of Banks v Stanford, 2018 NY Slip Op 00829, Second Dept 2-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PAROLE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO HOLD A DE NOVO PAROLE HEARING AS ORDERED BY THE ARTICLE 78 COURT, THE EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT CALL FOR A HEARING IN THIS CONTEXT, ONLY AN INTERVIEW (SECOND DEPT))/PAROLE (CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO HOLD A DE NOVO PAROLE HEARING AS ORDERED BY THE ARTICLE 78 COURT, THE EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT CALL FOR A HEARING IN THIS CONTEXT, ONLY AN INTERVIEW (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (PAROLE BOARD, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO HOLD A DE NOVO PAROLE HEARING AS ORDERED BY THE ARTICLE 78 COURT, THE EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT CALL FOR A HEARING IN THIS CONTEXT, ONLY AN INTERVIEW (SECOND DEPT))

,

PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH INFORMATION ABOUT FAVORABLE TREATMENT AFFORDED A WITNESS IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS TESTIMONY, AND THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO CORRECT THE WITNESS’S MISLEADING TESTIMONY, REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, based upon the People’s failure to provide exculpatory information and correct a witness’s testimony, required reversal and a new trial. A witness, Avitto, called by the People testified defendant made inculpatory statements (re: the murder charge) while they were in jail together. At trial the Avitto testified he received no benefit from the People in exchange for his testimony. However, after a hearing, it appeared there had been an informal agreement to provide Avitto with favorable treatment in return for his testimony. Avitto was facing a serious charge and needed to complete a drug program to qualify for a shorter sentence. Even though Avitto was not doing well in the drug program, and in fact had left the program, he was allowed to stay out of jail and continue to attempt to complete the program:

​

The evidence at issue here—Avitto’s immediate contact with the police … , after leaving the drug program, his subsequent court appearance with detectives and the prosecutor … , when he was released on his own recognizance, as well as his ability to remain out of custody despite poor progress in his drug treatment and numerous violations—was of such a nature that the jury could have found that, despite Avitto’s protestations to the contrary, “there was indeed a tacit understanding” between Avitto and the prosecution that he would receive or hoped to receive a benefit for his testimony … . This evidence was material in nature, and its nondisclosure prejudiced the defendant, as it constituted impeachment material and tended to show a motivation for Avitto to lie … .

Accordingly, the prosecutor was not only required to disclose this evidence to the defendant, but was further required to clarify “the record by disclosing all the details of what had actually transpired” between the District Attorney’s office and Avitto … . The prosecutor further had the obligation to correct any misleading or false testimony given by Avitto at trial regarding his contact with detectives and the prosecutor, and his progression in drug treatment … . These errors were further compounded when the prosecutor reiterated and emphasized Avitto’s misleading testimony during summation … .  People v Giuca, 2018 NY Slip Op 00846, Second Dept 2-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (BRADY MATERIAL, PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH INFORMATION ABOUT FAVORABLE TREATMENT AFFORDED A WITNESS IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS TESTIMONY, AND THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO CORRECT THE WITNESS’S MISLEADING TESTIMONY, REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, BRADY MATERIAL PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH INFORMATION ABOUT FAVORABLE TREATMENT AFFORDED A WITNESS IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS TESTIMONY, AND THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO CORRECT THE WITNESS’S MISLEADING TESTIMONY, REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/BRADY MATERIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, , PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH INFORMATION ABOUT FAVORABLE TREATMENT AFFORDED A WITNESS IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS TESTIMONY, AND THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO CORRECT THE WITNESS’S MISLEADING TESTIMONY, REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (CRIMINAL LAW, BRADY MATERIAL PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH INFORMATION ABOUT FAVORABLE TREATMENT AFFORDED A WITNESS IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS TESTIMONY, AND THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO CORRECT THE WITNESS’S MISLEADING TESTIMONY, REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

FOR INMATES WHO COMMITTED CRIMES AS JUVENILES, THEIR YOUTH MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PAROLE DETERMINATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s ruling sending the matter back for a de novo parole interview. Petitioner was 17 when he committed murder and is now 50. Pursuant to a decision from the 3rd Department, the parole board has decided to include an inmate’s youth at the time of the crime in making parole determinations:

… [W]e deem it appropriate to affirm the judgment that annulled the Parole Board’s determination and remitted the matter to the Parole Board for a de novo interview before a different panel. The petitioner is entitled to a meaningful opportunity for release in which the Parole Board considers, inter alia, his youth at the time of the commission of the crimes and its attendant circumstances … . Matter of Putland v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2018 NY Slip Op 00837, Second Dept 2-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PAROLE, JUVENILES, FOR INMATES WHO COMMITTED CRIMES AS JUVENILES, THEIR YOUTH MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PAROLE DETERMINATIONS (SECOND DEPT))PAROLE (JUVENILE OFFENDERS, FOR INMATES WHO COMMITTED CRIMES AS JUVENILES, THEIR YOUTH MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PAROLE DETERMINATIONS (SECOND DEPT)

,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s breach of contract action in this medical malpractice case was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action:

​

… [A] cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract to provide medical services “will withstand a test to its legal sufficiency only where it is based upon an express special promise to effect a cure or to accomplish some definite result”… . Here, the plaintiff’s allegations, even supplemented by her affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract to provide medical services. The plaintiff’s allegations as to the formation and terms of any alleged contract are vague and entirely conclusory. Moreover, the alleged damages, which are in the nature of pain and suffering, are not recoverable in a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract to provide medical services … . Detringo v South Is. Family Med., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00821, Second Dept 2-7-18

CONTRACT LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTRACT LAW, COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s breach of contract action based upon an unexecuted contract which could not be completed within a lifetime was properly granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was a member of a limited liability company (Ocean Rich) which had taken out a life insurance policy for plaintiff’s decedent, payable to Ocean State. The agreement which was never signed would have required that the proceeds of the policy be used to buy out plaintiff’s decedent’s share of the LLC. The Second Department further determined counsel for the defendant LLC should be disqualified because he had represented the LLC before plaintiff’s decedent’s death:

​

… [T]he defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with contract, by submitting evidence that the agreement was never executed by the members of Ocean Rich, and therefore does not satisfy the statute of frauds. …  Since the alleged promise upon which the plaintiff relied—that Ocean Rich would purchase the decedent’s interest in it from his estate with the proceeds of the subject insurance policy—could not, by its terms, “be completed before the end of a lifetime,” the Supreme Court properly granted [defendants’ motion for summary judgment]. …

​

… [T]he plaintiff alleged in an affidavit that the defendants’ counsel was involved in the formation of Ocean Rich, and the defendants’ counsel admitted that he had represented Ocean Rich in “various past matters.” Counsel’s prior representation of Ocean Rich “was in fact represent[ation of] its [three] shareholders,” whose competing interests are at issue in this action … . Likewise, counsel’s involvement in the formation of Ocean Rich and his representation of it against third parties was “substantially related” to the present action… . Since the defendants’ counsel was “in a position to receive relevant confidences” from the decedent, whose estate’s interests “are now adverse to the defendant[s’] interests,” the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to disqualify the defendants’ counsel … . Deerin v Ocean Rich Foods, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00820, Second Dept 2-7-18

CONTRACT LAW (UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF FRAUDS  (UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CONFLICT OF INTEREST, UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW, (UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT))

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