Month: November 2009

CPLR R. 3212(a)(f) Shennanigans and CPLR § 3213

CPLR R. 3212 Motion for summary judgment
(a) Time; kind of action
(b) Supporting proof; grounds; relief to either party
(f) Facts unavailable to opposing party

CPLR § 3213 Motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint

Abdalla v Mazl Taxi, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 07566 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The defendants established good cause in support of that branch of
their motion which was for leave to extend their time to move for
summary judgment until 120 days after receipt of all outstanding
discovery, since there was significant discovery outstanding at the
time the note of issue was filed (see Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124; Jones v Grand Opal Constr. Corp., 64 AD3d 543; Sclafani v Washington Mut., 36 AD3d 682; Herrera v Felice Realty Corp., 22 AD3d 723, 724). Therefore, that branch of their motion should have been granted.

Delacruz v Ostrich Cab Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 07577 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that
the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of
Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79
NY2d 955, 956-957). During his examination of the plaintiff, the
defendants' orthopedic surgeon found restrictions in the range of
motion of the plaintiff's lumbar spine, which he described as
"self-restricted." However, he failed to explain or substantiate with
any objective medical evidence the basis for his conclusion that the
limitations that were noted were self-restricted (see Cuevas v Compote Cab Corp., 61 AD3d 812; Colon v Chuen Sum Chu, 61 AD3d 805; Torres v Garcia, 59 AD3d 705; Busljeta v Plandome Leasing, Inc., 57 AD3d 469).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion
for summary judgment without considering the sufficiency of the
plaintiff's opposition papers (see Cuevas v Compote Cab Corp., 61 AD3d 812; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp., 283 AD2d 538). 

Solomon v Langer, 2009 NY Slip Op 07335 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Plaintiff established her entitlement to summary judgment in lieu of
complaint on the promissory note made by defendant by establishing
execution, delivery, demand and failure to pay (see Israel Discount Bank of N.Y. v 500 Fifth Ave. Assoc.,
167 AD2d 203 [1990]). Defendant failed to substantiate, in evidentiary
form, his assertion that payments to plaintiff's mother, an alleged
business acquaintance since deceased, discharged the note. Defendant
sets forth no evidence of misleading conduct on the part of plaintiff
indicating that she gave her mother the authority to transact business
on her behalf (compare Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224,
231 [1984]). Furthermore, the note unequivocally stated that payment
was to be made directly to plaintiff and the parol evidence rule bars
consideration of defendant's purported oral agreement with plaintiff's
mother regarding payment of the loan (see Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v Margolis,
115 AD2d 406 [1985]). Moreover, it is settled that "invocation of
defenses based on facts extrinsic to an instrument for the payment of
money only do not [*2]preclude CPLR 3213 consideration" (Alard, L.L.C. v Weiss, 1 AD3d 131,767 NYS2d 11, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 18173).

Davila v New York City Tr. Auth., 2009 NY Slip Op 07792 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The opposition to the motion submitted by Keyspan and the defendant
Liberty Department Store, the only parties who opposed the motion,
failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212[b]). [*2]Moreover,
contrary to the contention of those defendants, the appellant's motion
was not premature, as they failed to offer an evidentiary basis to
suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence and that facts
essential to justify opposition were exclusively within the knowledge
or control of the appellant (see Lopez v WS Distrib., Inc., 34
AD3d 759, 760). "The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient
to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the
discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion" (Lopez v WS Distrib., Inc., 34
AD3d 759). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the
appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and
all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

and finally,

Stoian v Reed, 2009 NY Slip Op 07713 (App. Div., 3rd, 2009)

We also reject plaintiffs' assertion that Supreme Court abused its
discretion in failing to grant them additional time with which to
conduct discovery. Although the court had the discretion to permit
further discovery if it found that "facts essential to justify
opposition [to a motion for summary judgment] may exist but cannot then
be stated" (CPLR 3212 [f]; see Clochessy v Gagnon, 58 AD3d
1008, 1010 [2009]), "the nonmoving party must produce some evidence
indicating that further discovery 'will yield material and relevant
evidence'" (Fleischman v Peacock Water Co., Inc., 51 AD3d 1203, 1205 [2008], quoting Zinter Handling, Inc. v Britton, 46 AD3d 998,
1001 [2007] [citation omitted]). "The 'mere hope' that evidence
sufficient to defeat the motion may be uncovered during the discovery
process is not enough" (Mazzaferro v Barterama Corp., 218 AD2d 643, 644 [1995], quoting Jones v Gameray, 153 AD2d 550, 551 [1989]; see Clochessy v Gagnon, 58 AD3d at 1010).

Here, plaintiffs requested an extension to obtain testimony from
three contractors that had worked on the house. However, plaintiffs
fail to provide any specifics as to how these [*3]individuals could provide evidence material and relevant to defendants' alleged active concealment (see Zinter Handling, Inc. v Britton,
46 AD3d at 1001). Further, it is undisputed that plaintiffs provided
defendants with a list of contractors who worked on the house prior to
the 1999 closing; indeed, plaintiff admitted during his deposition that
he spoke with at least two of these individuals regarding repairs to
the house (see Flieschman v Peacock Water Co., Inc., 51 AD3d at 1205; Zinter Handling, Inc. v Britton,
46 AD3d at 1001). Under these circumstances, and given the fact that
plaintiffs provide no reasonable excuse for delaying their request for
additional discovery for over two years following depositions and,
indeed, nearly six years after commencing this action, we find no abuse
of discretion in Supreme Court's decision to deny plaintiffs' request (see Dalaba v City of Schenectady, 61 AD3d 1151, 1153 [2009]).

No-fault Defender talks about the case too.

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

Cargill Fin. Servs. Intl., Inc. v Bank Fin. & Credit Ltd., 2009 NY Slip Op 07688 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

While plaintiff's evidence established a basis for quasi in rem
jurisdiction, in that defendant, a Ukranian bank, utilized its New York
correspondent accounts to receive funds and make interest payments
pursuant to the terms of the parties' loan agreements and associated
letters of credit (see generally Banco Ambrosiano v Artoc Bank & Trust,
62 NY2d 65 [1984]), plaintiff failed in its burden to show the extent,
if any, that defendant had an attachable ownership interest in the
subject correspondent accounts (see e.g. Sigmoil Resources v Pan Ocean Oil Corp. (Nigeria), 234 AD2d 103 [1996], lv dismissed 89 NY2d 1030 [1997]). As [*2]such, the court properly exercised its discretion to deny plaintiff's attachment application (see J.V.W. Inv. Ltd. v Kelleher, 41 AD3d 233 [2007]).

The bold is mine.

Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel, and Law of the Case

Res Judicata

Collateral Estoppel

Law of the Case

State Farm Ins. Co. v Frias, 2009 NY Slip Op 07825 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

State Farm argued that, because the three nondefaulting defendants
had not proposed a counter-judgment, had not opposed State Farm's
proposed judgment, had not moved for leave to renew or reargue, had not
moved to vacate the judgment, and had not appealed from the judgment,
they were estopped from challenging the declarations contained in it.
Luccme and Urena opposed State Farm's motion and, in an order entered
April 10, 2008, the Supreme Court granted the motion based on the
failure of the nondefaulting defendants to oppose the proposed
judgment. Luccme and Urena appeal from the resulting judgment. We
reverse.

Inasmuch as State Farm initially moved for leave to enter a
default judgment against the defaulting defendants only, the resulting
judgment binds only those defendants, and may not be given preclusive
effect to deprive Luccme and Urena, who appeared in the action, of
their right to litigate the issues pertaining to coverage (see American Motorists Ins. Co. v North Country Motors, 57 AD2d 158, 160). Accordingly, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

But what about privity.

Shelley v Silvestre, 2009 NY Slip Op 07822 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final disposition on the merits
bars litigation between the same parties of all other claims arising
out of the same transaction or out of the same or related facts, even
if based upon a different theory involving materially different
elements of proof. The rule applies not only to claims litigated but
also to claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation" (Matter of City of New York v Schmitt, 50 AD3d 1032, 1033 [citations omitted]; see Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45
NY2d 24, 30). The claims raised in the instant complaint were raised or
could have been raised during a prior action between the same parties,
which was disposed of on the merits. Accordingly, the plaintiffs'
complaint was properly dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res
judicata (see Town of New Windsor v New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403, 404-405; Slavin v Fischer, 160 AD2d 934, 934-935).

Lighthouse 925 Hempstead, LLC v Citibank, N.A., 2009 NY Slip Op 07597 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

"Res judicata serves to bar future litigation between the same
parties or those in privity with the parties of a cause of action
arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a
cause of action that was raised in a prior proceeding" (Winkler v Weiss, 294 AD2d 428, 429; see Matter of ADC [*2]Contr. & Constr., Inc. v Town of Southampton,
50 AD3d 1025, 1026). The fact that causes of action may be stated
separately or invoke different legal theories will not permit
relitigation of claims (see Matter of Hodes v Axelrod, 70 NY2d 364, 372; see also Matter of ADC Contr. & Constr., Inc. v Town of Southampton, 50 AD3d at 1025).

Here, both this action and the prior action arise from the same
transaction, namely the defendants' alleged failure to remove a
drive-thru ATM. The fact that Lighthouse now invokes the legal theory
of trespass instead of breach of contract, which it argued in the prior
action, will not permit it to relitigate the claim. Therefore, the
Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was barred by
res judicata.

Frankson v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 06799 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

As a general rule, the law of the case doctrine precludes this Court
from re-examining an issue which has been raised and decided against a
party on a prior appeal where that party had a full and fair
opportunity to address the issue (see People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 502; Allison v Allison, 60 AD3d 711; Lipp v Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 57 AD3d 953, 954; Town of Massena v Healthcare Underwriters Mut. Ins. Co., 40 AD3d 1177,
1197). Unlike res judicata and collateral estoppel, which "are rigid
rules of limitation," the law of the case doctrine "is a judicially
crafted policy that expresses the practice of courts generally to
refuse to reopen what has been decided, [and is] not a limit to their
power'" (People v Evans, 94 NY2d at 503, quoting Messenger v Anderson, 225 US 436, 444). Thus, while the law of the case doctrine is intended to foster "orderly convenience" (Foley v Roche, 86
AD2d 887, 887), it is not an absolute mandate which limits an appellate
court's power to reconsider issues where there are extraordinary
circumstances, "such as subsequent evidence affecting the prior
determination or a change of law" (Lipp v Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 57 AD3d at 954; see People v Evans 94 NY2d at 503; J-Mar Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey, 45 AD3d 809; Foley v Roche, 86 AD2d at 887).

Guided by these principles, we agree that the law of the case
doctrine precludes us from reconsidering the issues of whether the
trial court applied an appropriate standard for the admissibility of
scientific evidence, and whether punitive damages were properly
assessed against the Tobacco Institute and the Tobacco Council. These
issues were raised by the defendants and decided against them on the
prior appeals, and there are no new factual circumstances or change in
the law which would warrant our reconsideration (see Pekich v James Lawrence, Inc., 38 AD3d 632, 633; Quinn v Hillside Dev. Corp., 21 AD3d 406, 407; Wendy v Spector, 305 AD2d 403).

All the bold is mine.

CPLR § 5511–only the aggrieved can appeal

CPLR § 5511 Permissible appellant and respondent

AMS Prods., LLC v Signorile, 2009 NY Slip Op 07776 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

Only an aggrieved party may appeal from an order or judgment pursuant to CPLR 5511 (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Duclaire, 49 AD3d 863). Where a party obtains the relief it seeks from the Supreme Court, is not aggrieved by that order (id.; see DiMare v O'Rourke, 35 AD3d 346; Evans v Nab Constr. Corp., 80 AD2d 841).

Here, the plaintiff, by its motion, sought a preliminary
injunction enjoining the defendant from "engaging in any business,
trade or occupation" within the New York City metropolitan area that
was "similar to the one" he sold to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court
granted all of the relief requested in the plaintiff's motion.
Consequently, the plaintiff is not an aggrieved party.

To the extent that the plaintiff requests relief on this appeal
which was not sought before the Supreme Court, that request is not
properly before this Court.

The bold is mine.