Author: DMG

3216 and mailing / personal knowledge

Bank of Am. v Guillaume, 2019 NY Slip Op 00845 [2d Dept. 2019]

“CPLR 3216 is the general statutory authority for neglect-to-prosecute dismissals” (Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 502). Pursuant to CPLR 3216, a court may dismiss an action for want of prosecution only after the court or the defendant has served the plaintiff with a written demand requiring the plaintiff “to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within [90] days after receipt of [the] demand,” and also stating that the failure to comply with the demand will serve as a basis for a motion to dismiss the action.

Notably, the time within which the plaintiff must act runs from the receipt, and not the service of the demand (see Vasquez v City of New York, 5 AD3d 672; Kun Tiam Seow v Yu Dan Li, 1 AD3d 570, 571; 176-60 Union Turnpike v Klinger, 284 AD2d 380). Once the 90-day demand is received, “the plaintiff [is] required to comply with it by filing a note of issue or move before the default date to vacate the demand or extend the 90-day period” (Kushmakova v Meadow Park Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC, 56 AD3d 434, 436; see CPLR 3216[c],[e]).

“Generally, proof that an item was properly mailed gives rise to a rebuttable [*2]presumption that the item was received by the addressee'” (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d 547, 547, quoting Matter of Rodriguez v Wing, 251 AD2d 335, 336). “The presumption may be created by either proof of actual mailing or proof of a standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” (Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679, 680).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, she failed to establish that the 90-day demand was sent by certified mail and received by the plaintiff or anyone acting on its behalf. In his affirmation in support of the defendant’s motion, the defendant’s counsel asserted that on July 28, 2017, his office sent a 90-day demand to plaintiff’s counsel by certified mail. However, the defendant’s counsel does not state that he had personal knowledge of the mailing of the 90-day demand or describe his office’s standard practices of mailing litigation papers to opposing counsel. Additionally, even though the certified mail receipt bears a postmark date of July 28, 2017, there was no evidence that the 90-day demand was mailed under that certified mail receipt number (see Mid City Constr. Co., Inc. v Sirius Am. Ins. Co., 70 AD3d 789, 790; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. Allstate Ins. Co., 29 AD3d at 547-548). Therefore, the defendant’s submissions were insufficient to raise a presumption that the plaintiff received the 90-day demand. Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for failure to prosecute.

A judgment without jurisdiction is void

Board of Mgrs. of 50 W. 127th St. Condominium v Kidd, 2019 NY Slip Op 00973 [1st Dept. 2019]

Defendant did not waive the defense of lack of jurisdiction. Before her incoming counsel filed a notice of appearance without mentioning the defense, she had already presented an order to show cause seeking to vacate the judgment based on lack of personal jurisdiction, and she moved to vacate based on improper service shortly after new counsel appeared. In contrast, in the cases relied on by plaintiff and City West, the defendant’s counsel filed a notice of appearance without preserving any objection to jurisdiction after the time to move or answer had elapsed, and did not move to vacate for years afterwards, indicating an intentional abandonment of the defense (see e.g. Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Zimmerman, 157 AD3d 846, 846-847 [2d Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1135 [2018]; Capital One Bank, N.A. v Farraco, 149 AD3d 590, 590 [1st Dept 2017]). Defendant’s communications with plaintiff’s managing agent in which she arranged to pay her arrears, cannot be construed as an appearance in the action, much less a waiver of her defense of lack of jurisdiction.

Because the judgment was entered without jurisdiction over defendant, City West is not entitled to restitution as an alternative remedy to vacatur of the foreclosure sale, as “[a] judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void” and “a deed [] issued in execution upon such a void judgment . . . is similarly void” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Bernhardt, 88 AD3d 871, 872 [2d Dept 2011]).

3126 commensurate…and no further

Han v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 00975 [1st Dept. 2019]

CPLR 3126 provides that if a party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed . . . , the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just.” It is within the motion court’s discretion to determine the nature and degree of the penalty (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122 [1999]), and the sanction will remain undisturbed unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion (see Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc., 11 NY3d 843, 845 [2008]). The sanction should be “commensurate with the particular disobedience it is designed to punish, and go no further than that” (Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3126:8 at 497; see also Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v Global Strat Inc., 22 NY3d 877, 880 [2013]).

premature and not premature

Estate of Bachman v Hong, 2019 NY Slip Op 00977 [1st Dept. 2019]

Although discovery had not yet been taken, the motion was not premature as to liability because defendant, as the driver, has knowledge of how the accident occurred and did not show any need for discovery on that issue (see Delgado v Martinez Family Auto, 113 AD3d 426, 427 [1st Dept 2014]; Johnson v Phillips, 261 AD2d 269, 270, 272 [1st Dept 1999]; CPLR 3212[f]).

On the other hand, plaintiff failed to meet her prima facie evidence on the serious injury issue because she neglected to submit admissible evidence supporting her allegation that she suffered a fractured finger and sternum (CPLR 3212[a];Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Although plaintiff’s hospital records were submitted on reply, that did not provide defendant with any opportunity to submit medical evidence in opposition or to address whether the records supported the injuries alleged in the complaint. Further, the motion was premature because defendant had not received those documents or conducted any discovery [*2]on the serious injury issue before the motion was made (see Cruz v Skeritt, 140 AD3d 554, 555 [1st Dept 2016]; Global Mins. & Metals Corp. v Holme, 35 AD3d 93, 103 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]).

Condition precedent

Jeffers v American Univ. of Antigua, 2019 NY Slip Op 00987 [1st Dept. 2019]

 Specifically, it is well settled that “a party to a contract cannot rely on the failure of another to perform a condition precedent where he has frustrated or prevented the occurrence of the condition” (Kooleraire Serv. & Installation Corp. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 28 NY2d 101, 106 [1971]; Fairway Prime Estate Mgt., LLC v First Am. Intl. Bank, 99 AD3d 554, 557 [1st Dept 2012]).

Certificate of readiness

McKiernan v Vaccaro, 2019 NY Slip Op 00267 [1st Dept. 2019]

“Pursuant to Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, a note of issue must be accompanied by a certificate of readiness, which must state that there are no outstanding requests for discovery and the case is ready for trial” (Slovney v Nasso, 153 AD3d 962, 962; see 22 NYCRR 202.21[a], [b]; Furrukh v Forest Hills Hosp., 107 AD3d 668, 669). Here, the plaintiff’s certificate of readiness stated that significant discovery remained outstanding when the note of issue and certificate of readiness were filed. Since the certificate of readiness failed to materially comply with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.21, the filing of the note of issue was a nullity (see Slovney v Nasso, 153 AD3d at 962; Furrukh v Forest Hills Hosp., 107 AD3d at 669). Since the note of issue was a nullity, the plaintiff’s argument that the Supreme Court erred in permitting Mancuso to continue with discovery is without merit. Moreover, the plaintiff’s contention that counsel’s affirmation of good faith in support of Mancuso’s motion to vacate the note of issue was insufficient is without merit (see Suarez v Shapiro Family Realty Assoc., LLC, 149 AD3d 526, 527). Accordingly, we agree with the court’s determination to grant Mancuso’s motion to vacate the note of issue and to permit Mancuso to conduct certain discovery.

Mordekai v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 00431 [2d Dept. 2019]

We agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was, in effect, to impose a sanction on the defendants by precluding them from relying upon certain evidence in support of their motion for summary judgment or introducing such evidence at trial. The plaintiff waived any objection to the adequacy and timeliness of the defendants’ disclosure of certain evidence by filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness stating that disclosure was complete and that there were no outstanding requests for disclosure (see Iscowitz v [*2]County of Suffolk, 54 AD3d 725; Melcher v City of New York, 38 AD3d 376; Simpson v City of New York, 10 AD3d 601). In any event, the plaintiff did not make a showing of willful and contumacious conduct on the part of the defendants, nor did the plaintiff demonstrate that he would be substantially prejudiced by the post-note of issue disclosure of the evidence (see Iscowitz v County of Suffolk, 54 AD3d at 725).

Court should not grant motions based on grounds not addressed in the papers

Patel v Sharma, 2019 NY Slip Op 00452 [2d Dept. 2019]

The Supreme Court should not have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised in the defendant’s motion (see Singletary v Alhalal Rest., 163 AD3d 738; Mew Equity, LLC v Sutton Land Servs., LLC, 144 AD3d 874, 877; Quizhpe v Luvin Constr., 70 AD3d 912, 914). “[O]n a motion for summary judgment, the court is limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion before the court” (Matter of Pritchett, 128 AD3d 836, 837; see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429-430; Philogene v Duckett, 163 AD3d 1015). The plaintiff had no opportunity to address the issue regarding the allegedly defective summons, and this “lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” (Rosenblatt v St. George Health & Racquetball Assoc., LLC, 119 AD3d 45, 54; see Frank M. Flower & Sons, Inc. v North Oyster Bay Baymen’s Assn, Inc., 150 AD3d 965, 966; Matter of Meighan v Ponte, 144 AD3d 917, 918).

Service requirements in OSC are jurisdictional in nature

Boucan NYC Café, LLC v 467 Rogers, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00416 [2d Dept. 2019]

We agree with the defendant’s contention that the service requirements set forth in the order to show cause dated August 9, 2017, were jurisdictional in nature. The plaintiff’s undisputed failure to comply with these requirements by serving the order to show cause pursuant to CPLR 308(4), instead of CPLR 311-a, deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s order to show cause in the order dated August 16, 2017 (see Gonzalez v Haniff, 144 AD3d 1087). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant may challenge the validity of the order dated August 16, 2017, on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to enter the order (see Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v Platt, 148 AD3d 645). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to hold the defendant in contempt for failure to comply with the order dated August 16, 2017, should have been denied.

Stop denying with leave to renew

Corvino v Schineller, 2019 NY Slip Op 00259 [2d Dept. 2019]

The defendant’s contention that the plaintiff’s motion should have been denied without leave to renew is not properly before this Court. However, we note our concern that, where a motion for summary judgment has been made prematurely, granting leave to renew upon completion of discovery may only encourage the making of premature motions, resulting in successive motion practice and, in turn, successive appeals, thus increasing the burdens on this Court. Motion courts should therefore exercise their discretion with care in deciding whether to give advance permission to a movant to make a successive motion for summary judgment.

Amended complaint was the operative pleading

Delmaestro v Marlin, 2019 NY Slip Op 00260 [2d Dept. 2019]

As a threshold matter, the plaintiff is correct that the amended complaint, which was served as of right while the defendants’ renewed motion was pending (see CPLR 3025[a]; 3211[f]), superseded the original complaint and was the operative pleading in this action (see Taub v Schon, 148 AD3d 1200, 1201; D’Amico v Correctional Med. Care, Inc., 120 AD3d 956, 957). Nevertheless, that branch of the defendants’ renewed motion which sought dismissal of the cause of action alleging promissory estoppel was not rendered academic by the filing of the amended complaint, which was substantially similar to the original pleading, except that it omitted the cause of action for specific performance (see e.g. Sim v Farley Equip. Co. LLC, 138 AD3d 1228, 1228 n 1; Calcagno v Roberts, 134 AD3d 1292, 1292 n). The amended complaint did not substantively alter the original promissory estoppel cause of action, which was the only remaining cause of action being pursued by the plaintiff. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, any error by the Supreme Court in disregarding the amended complaint does not constitute grounds for reversal (see e.g. Sim v Farley Equip. Co. LLC, 138 AD3d at 1228 n 1; Calcagno v Roberts, 134 AD3d at 1292 n).