DMG – Page 23

Replies

Gelaj v Gelaj, 2018 NY Slip Op 05917 [2d Dept 2018]

The purpose of a reply affidavit or affirmation is to respond to arguments made in opposition to the movant's motion and not to introduce new arguments or grounds in support of the relief sought (see Matter of Moorman v Meadow Park Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC, 57 AD3d 788; Matter of Harleysville Ins. Co. v Rosario, 17 AD3d 677; Matter of TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658). There are exceptions to this rule, including when evidence is submitted in response to allegations made for the first time in opposition, or when the other party is given an opportunity to respond to the reply papers (see Gottlieb v Wynne, 159 AD3d 799; Central Mtge. Co. v Jahnsen, 150 AD3d 661). Neither of those exceptions applies here. The time for the defendant to produce the letters allegedly from the plaintiff transferring his interest in the shares would have been in support of her cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment declaring that she is the sole owner of the shares. There was no new allegation in the plaintiff's opposition to the cross motion that would have warranted the defendant's submission of the letters in reply. Further, the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to respond by way of surreply or oral argument. An unrecorded, in-chambers discussion of the cross motion cannot be deemed an opportunity to respond, especially in light of the plaintiff's claim on appeal that the letters are forgeries. Moreover, the defendant did not plead a demand for a declaratory judgment in a counterclaim (see Matter of Nozzleman 60, LLC v Village Bd. of Vil. of Cold Spring, 34 AD3d 680; Martinez v Dushko, 7 AD3d 584). The defendant also did not assert a claim to sole ownership of the shares in her pleading. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment declaring that she is the sole owner of the shares.

The bold is mine

Compare with

Cuevas v Baruti Constr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05905 [1st Dept 2018]

The motion court properly accepted Veras's second, clarifying affidavit in plaintiff's submission on reply. The second affidavit merely amplified the factual recitation set forth in Veras's initial affidavit, which had been procured and drafted by the defense and omitted the pertinent detail that the workers were actually in the process of lowering the machine from the roof, and not engaged in pushing it across the flat roof, when the accident occurred. Veras's second affidavit was a proper response to defendant's submission, and did not contradict the statement in his first affidavit (see Cox v McCormick Farms, 144 AD3d 1533 [4th Dept 2016] [where question was not directly asked in deposition, proper to consider subsequent affidavit providing greater specificity without directly contradicting deposition testimony]; Severino v 157 Broadway Assoc., LLC, 84 AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2011] [same]). Nor could Veras's second affidavit be rejected as raising a feigned issue of fact (see Sutin v Pawlus, 105 AD3d 1293 [3d Dept 2013]; Kalt v Ritman, 21 AD3d 321 [1st Dept 2005]), especially since it comported with all of the other eyewitness testimony in the case, as well as with Veras's own early unsworn statement, and explained the ambiguity arising from the omission of additional details in his first affidavit.

Subpoenas and trial defaults and CPLR 5511

Bottini v Bottini, 2018 NY Slip Op 05665 [2d Dept 2018]

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff's conduct at trial was a knowing and willing default, as she attended the first day of trial and then voluntarily chose not to attend the remainder of the trial (see Sarlo-Pinzur v Pinzur, 59 AD3d 607, 607; Matter of Anita L. v Damon N., 54 AD3d 630, 631). Although no appeal lies from a judgment entered on the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511), an appeal from such a judgment brings up for review "those matters which were the subject of contest before the Supreme Court" (Sarlo-Pinzur v Pinzur, 59 AD3d at 607-608 [internal quotations omitted]; see James v Powell, 19 NY2d 249, 256 n 3; Alam v Alam, 123 AD3d 1066, 1067; Tun v Aw, 10 AD3d 651, 652). Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the order dated March 28, 2016, in which the court granted the defendant's motion to quash to the extent of declining to so-order the 24 proposed subpoenas, is brought up for review.

As a pro se litigant, the plaintiff was unable to issue subpoenas on her own, and her subpoenas need to be so-ordered by the Supreme Court (see CPLR 2302; Hamilton v Touseull, 48 AD3d 520, 521). A subpoena duces tecum may not be used for the purposes of general discovery (see Matter of Terry D., 81 NY2d 1042, 1044; Wahab v Agris & Brenner, LLC, 106 AD3d 993, 994; Matter of Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. v Hankins, 294 AD2d 360, 360). Rather, the purpose of a subpoena duces tecum is " to compel the production of specific documents that are relevant and material to facts at issue in a pending judicial proceeding'" (Matter of Terry D., 81 NY2d at 1044, quoting Matter of Constantine v Leto, 157 AD2d 376, 378). Here, the plaintiff submitted the 24 proposed subpoenas to the court in February 2016, which was several months after the completion date for post-note of issue discovery. In addition to being overly broad, the subpoenas improperly sought the production of documents for the time period from 2007 through 2011, which was in violation of the court's prior orders. Under these circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion by declining to so-order the 24 proposed subpoenas, thus effectively denying the plaintiff's ability to issue the subpoenas (see Wahab v Agris & Brenner, LLC, 106 AD3d at 994; Matter of Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. v Hankins, 294 AD2d at 360).

Sua Sponte SOL

352 Legion Funding Assoc. v 348 Riverdale, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05662 [2d Dept 2018]

We agree with the plaintiff that the Supreme Court erred in sua sponte raising the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations and directing the dismissal of the complaint on that ground. The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which is waived by a party unless it is raised either in a responsive pleading, or by motion prior to the submission of a responsive pleading (see CPLR 3211[e]; Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Cox, 110 AD3d 760, 762; Aurora Loan Servs. LLC v Dimura, 104 AD3d 796, 797; Horst v Brown, 72 AD3d 434, 436). "A court may not take judicial notice,' sua sponte, of the applicability of a statute of limitations if that defense has not been raised" (Paladino v Time Warner Cable of N.Y. City, 16 AD3d 646, 647; see De Oleo v Charis Christian Ministries, Inc., 94 AD3d 541, 542; Horst v Brown, 72 AD3d at 436). Here, the defendant neither answered the complaint nor submitted a pre-answer motion which raised the statute of limitations defense.

The plaintiff met its burden on its motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference by submitting proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defendant's failure to answer or appear (see CPLR 3215[f]; RPAPL 1321; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Mayen, 155 AD3d 811, 813; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Ambrosov, 120 AD3d 1225, 1226). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the motion.

Order to Show Cause — not quite improperly served

Young v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05793 [2d Dept 2018]

Aside from a deposition conducted on March 17, 2005, this action was dormant until January 26, 2015, when the plaintiffs moved by order to show cause, inter alia, to restore the action to the active calendar and to deem their late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. Unbeknownst to the plaintiffs, the Kings County Clerk's Office encountered some type of error when scanning and uploading the signed order to show cause to the eCourts system. The digital copy of the order to show cause omitted the page containing the return date of February 27, 2015, among other things, although the remaining pages feature the handwritten notation "2/27/15." The plaintiffs printed the faulty digital copy without noticing the error and served that copy on the defendants with supporting papers, using the method specified in the order to show cause.

In response, seven days before the return date, the defendants cross-moved to dismiss the complaint. They argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs' service of the faulty digital copy of the order to show cause constituted a jurisdictional defect, and that the Supreme Court should dismiss the complaint based on the plaintiffs' failure to timely serve the notice of claim. The defendants thereafter appeared on the return date. In an order dated September 11, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion by order to show cause as "defectively served," and granted the defendants' cross motion to dismiss the action. The plaintiffs appeal.

"The failure to give proper notice of a motion deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the motion" (Gonzalez v Haniff, 144 AD3d 1087, 1088; see Crown Waterproofing, Inc. v Tadco Const. Corp., 99 AD3d 964, 965). However, the defect in service here was "merely technical" (Ruffin v Lion Corp., 15 NY3d 578, 582; see Matter of Bender v Lancaster Cent. Sch. Dist., 155 AD3d 1590, 1590; Matter of Kennedy v New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities, 154 AD3d 1346, 1347; Matter of Oneida Pub. Lib. Dist. v Town Bd. of the Town of Verona, 153 AD3d 127, 130; Grskovic v Holmes, 111 AD3d 234, 241-242). Under these circumstances, given that no substantial right of the defendants was prejudiced, the Supreme Court should have disregarded the irregularity and determined the motion on the merits (see CPLR 2001; Gonzalez v Haniff, 144 AD3d at 1088; Grskovic v Holmes, 111 AD3d at 241-242).

Bold is mine.

Service

US Bank, N.A. v Daskal, 2018 NY Slip Op 05792 [2d Dept 2018]

Schwartz's contention that he was never properly served with process is without merit. "A process server's affidavit of service gives rise to a presumption of proper service" (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v O'King, 148 AD3d 776, 776). "A sworn denial containing a detailed and specific contradiction of the allegations in the process server's affidavit will defeat the presumption of proper service" (id. at 776-777; see HSBC Bank USA v Whitter, 159 AD3d 942). "If the presumption is rebutted, a hearing to determine the propriety of service of process is necessary" (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v O'King, 148 AD3d at 777).

The process server averred in his affidavit of service that on July 14, 2008, at the subject premises, he served the summons and complaint on Schwartz by delivering a copy thereof to a person of suitable age and discretion, namely, "family member" Bracha Rosenbaum, and that on July 16, 2008, he mailed copies of the documents to Schwartz at the same address. These statements in the affidavit of service give rise to a presumption that Schwartz was properly served with process (see CPLR 308[2]).

Although Schwartz denied ever having resided at the subject premises, he failed to support his assertion (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Tauber, 140 AD3d 1154, 1155). Moreover, he did not specifically deny that Rosenbaum was a family member and a person of suitable age and discretion (see HSBC Bank USA v Whitter, 159 AD3d 942). Accordingly, Schwartz failed to rebut the presumption of proper service (see Bank of N.Y. v Espejo, 92 AD3d 707; 96 Pierrepont v Mauro, 304 AD2d 631).

CPLR 5001 and 5002

Kachkovskiy v Khlebopros, 2018 NY Slip Op 05671 [2d Dept 2018]

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest. CPLR 5001(a) provides that interest shall be recovered upon a sum awarded for a breach of contract. CPLR 5001 further mandates that "[i]nterest shall be computed from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed" (CPLR 5001[b]). "Where such damages were incurred at various times, interest shall be computed upon each item from the date it was incurred or upon all of the damages from a single reasonable intermediate date" (CPLR 5001[b]; see Baer v Anesthesia Assoc. of Mount Kisco, LLP, 57 AD3d 817, 819; Hayden v P. Zarkadas, P.C., 18 AD3d 500, 501; 155 Henry Owners Corp. v Lovlyn Realty Co., 231 AD2d 559, 560-561). CPLR 5001 further provides that "[t]he date from which interest is to be computed shall be specified in the verdict, report or decision" (CPLR 5001[c]). With limited exception, "[i]f a jury is discharged without specifying the date, the court upon motion shall fix the date" (id.). The party seeking prejudgment interest bears the burden of demonstrating the date from which interest should be computed (see Matter of Kelligrew, 63 AD3d 1064, 1066; see also Siegel, NY Prac § 411 at 720 [5th ed 2011]).

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate when the damages were incurred. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court's determination that the damages were not incurred until the jury rendered its verdict was warranted (see generally Lee v Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 592 F2d 39 [2d Cir]; accord Siegel, NY Prac § 411 at 720 [5th ed]; cf. Matter of Kelligrew, 63 AD3d at 1066). Accordingly, we agree with the court's determination to deny that branch of the plaintiff's posttrial cross motion which sought prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001.

We also agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny that branch of the plaintiff's posttrial cross motion which sought prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5002. That statute provides that "[i]nterest shall be recovered upon the total sum awarded . . . from the date the verdict was rendered . . . to the date of entry of final judgment" (CPLR 5002). Here, however, the defendant tendered the total amount due under the verdict, $81,000, on the same date that the verdict was returned. Under the circumstances, the defendant's tender of the verdict amount prevented the accrual of interest under CPLR 5002 (see O'Rourk v Berner, 249 AD2d 975, 976; Meiselman v Allstate Ins. Co., 197 AD2d 561, 561-562; see also 10-5001 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac CPLR ¶ 5001.10).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly declined to award the plaintiff an attorney's [*4]fee. "Under the general rule, the prevailing party in litigation may not collect his or her counsel fees unless supported by statute, court rule, or written agreement of the parties" (Rosenthal v Rosenthal, 151 AD3d 773, 774; see Markham Gardens, L.P. v 511 9th, LLC, 143 AD3d 949, 953). Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that he was entitled to recover an attorney's fee under the parties' agreements (see Fitzpatrick v Animal Care Hosp., PLLC, 104 AD3d 1078, 1081). Moreover, the court properly concluded that the plaintiff did not receive substantial relief, so as to warrant the conclusion that he prevailed on a central claim (see Chainani v Lucchino, 94 AD3d 1492, 1494).

3211(e) single motion rule

41st Rd. Props., LLC v Wang Real Prop., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05565 [2d Dept 2018]

The Wang defendants' second motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that another action was pending was properly denied. As the Supreme Court observed, that motion violated the single-motion rule of CPLR 3211(e) (see Oakley v County of Nassau, 127 AD3d 946, 946-947).

Sweet release

Chiappone v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05569 [2d Dept 2018]

The meaning and coverage of a release necessarily depends upon the controversy being settled and upon the purpose for which the release was given (see Cahill v Regan, 5 NY2d 292, 299; Nucci v Nucci, 118 AD3d 762, 763). While a broad general release will be given effect regardless of the parties' unexpressed intentions, such "release may not be read to cover matters which the parties did not intend to cover" (Gale v Citicorp, 278 AD2d 197; see Cahill v Regan, 5 NY2d at 299; Mazzurco v PII Sam, LLC, 153 AD3d 1341, 1342; Clerico v Pollack, 148 AD3d 769, 771; Nucci v Nucci, 118 AD3d at 763; Desiderio v Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 107 AD3d 662, 663; Apfel v Prestia, 41 AD3d 520, 520-521; Hughes v Long Is. Univ., 305 AD2d 462, 462-463).

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, NSUH failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the release executed by the parties settling Action No. 1 was intended to preclude the plaintiff from recovering for claims that allegedly arose during and as a result of the second admission, which were not yet in dispute at the time the release was executed (see Glassberg v Lee, 82 AD3d 836, 837; Apfel v Prestia, 41 AD3d at 521; Alcantara v 603-607 Realty Assoc., 273 AD2d 329, 329-330). While the plaintiff may have been aware of the incident giving rise to Action No. 2 when she signed the release, any such awareness is insufficient, itself, to establish that the release was intended to cover any potential claims which were not the subject of Action No. 1. Accordingly, the court should have denied NSUH's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Bold is mine.

Matter of Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. v Fiumara, 2018 NY Slip Op 05681 [2d Dept 2018]

The petitioner then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration on the ground that the SUM claim was barred by the general release. The appellant opposed the petition, arguing that she was not barred from pursuing the claim against the petitioner because her SUM claim did not exist at the time that the general release was given. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's argument and granted the petition.

"A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law" (Schiller v Guthrie, 102 AD3d 852, 853 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cardinal Holdings, Ltd. v Indotronix Intl. Corp., 73 AD3d 960, 962). A valid general release will apply not only to known claims, but "may encompass unknown claims, . . . if the parties so intend and the agreement is fairly and knowingly made'" (Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 NY3d 269, 276, quoting Mangini v McClurg, 24 NY2d 556, 566-567; see A.A. Truck Renting Corp. [*2]v Navistar, Inc., 81 AD3d 674, 675; Matter of Brooklyn Resources Recovery, 309 AD2d 931, 932). "Where a release is unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be ascertained from the plain language of the agreement" (Schiller v Guthrie, 102 AD3d at 853-854 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Sicuranza v Philip Howard Apts. Tenants Corp., 121 AD3d 966, 967-968; Alvarez v Amicucci, 82 AD3d 687, 688). Here, the general release, in clear and unambiguous terms, releases all claims and future claims the appellant had or may have against the petitioner by reason of the subject accident. The plain language of the release thus precludes the appellant's SUM claim against the petitioner.

Maybe the appeal was late, maybe it wasn’t:CPLR 5513

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v James, 2018 NY Slip Op 05572 [2d Dept 2018]

Initially, since the record does not reveal when the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale and written notice of its entry was served on the defendant, we reject the plaintiff's contention that the defendant's appeal must be dismissed as untimely taken (see CPLR 5513[a]; Zapata v County of Suffolk, 23 AD3d 553, 554).

3212 – limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion

Green v Price Chopper, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05578 [2d Dept 2018]

In determining a motion for summary judgment, a court is generally limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion (see Rosenblatt v St. George Health & Racquetball Assoc., LLC, 119 AD3d 45, 52). Here, the Supreme Court should not have granted the motion on the ground that the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall, since the issue was not raised by the defendants in their motion papers