[App Div 1st Dept]

Expertly Fryed and a little precluded

Matter of Bausch & Lomb Contact Lens Solution Prod. Liab. Litig., 2011 NY Slip Op 06460 (1st Dept., 2011)

Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing at the Frye hearing (Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 [1923]) that their experts' opinions that defendant's soft contact lens solution ReNu with MoistureLoc (Renu ML) was causally related to a rise in non-Fusarium corneal infections were generally accepted by the relevant medical or scientific community (see Pauling v Orentreich Med. Group., 14 AD3d 357 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 710 [2005]; Lara v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 305 AD2d 106 [2003]; see also Marso v Novak, 42 AD3d 377 [2007], lv denied 12 NY3d 704 [2009]). They submitted no "controlled studies, clinical data, medical literature, peer review or supporting proof" of their theory (Saulpaugh v Krafte, 5 AD3d 934, 936 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 610 [2004]; Lara, 305 AD2d at 106).

Plaintiffs' experts contended that testing showed a reduced biocidal efficacy of ReNu ML under certain conditions. The experts then extrapolated from those results the conclusion that ReNu ML increased the risk of non-Fusarium infections. However, one of the experts stated in a published article that "contamination is not consistently correlated with a higher rate of microbial keratitis" (Levey and Cohen, Methods of Disinfecting Contact Lenses to Avoid Corneal Disorders, Survey of Ophthalmology, Vol. 41, No. 3, at 296 [1996]). In addition, from a certain study in which a film was found to protect Fusarium, plaintiffs' experts concluded that the film similarly would protect other microorganisms. However, plaintiffs' microbiologist conceded that different types of microorganisms have different needs and respond differently to different conditions.

Moreover, despite four studies conducted on keratitis infections during the relevant period, plaintiffs introduced no epidemiological evidence of a rise in non-Fusarium infections. The court properly excluded plaintiffs' epidemiologist from explaining this lack of an epidemiological signal, because the testimony had not been previously disclosed by plaintiffs and would have surprised defendant. Additionally, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate good cause for their failure to disclose the testimony (see CPLR 3101[d]; LaFurge v Cohen, 61 AD3d 426 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 701 [2009]; Peguero v 601 Realty Corp., 58 AD3d 556, 564 [2009]).

The court properly quashed plaintiffs' subpoena of defendant's expert and former chief medical officer, because the expert had been deposed on three occasions, and plaintiffs failed to articulate any legitimate need for his live testimony (see Pena v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 AD3d 309 [2008]).

Nonnon v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 06463 (1st Dept., 2011)

The Frye test is not concerned with the reliability of a particular expert's conclusions, but rather, with "whether the expert['s] deductions are based on principles that are sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance as reliable" (Nonnon I, 32 AD3d at 103 [internal quotation marks omitted]). General acceptance does not necessarily mean that a majority of the scientists involved subscribe to the conclusion, but that those espousing the theory or opinion have followed generally accepted scientific principles and methodology in reaching their conclusions.

***

Thus, so long as plaintiffs' experts have provided a "scientific expression" of plaintiff's exposure levels, they will have laid an adequate foundation for their opinions on specific causation (Jackson, 43 AD3d at 602 [internal quotation marks omitted]). For example, in Jackson, the court found that the plaintiffs' expert had laid a sufficient foundation for his opinion on causation where, inter alia, the expert was directly involved in the investigation of the potential health consequences of the underlying incident; co-authored a report based on the investigation and research that had been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, comparing the facts of the incident to those recorded in other studies; and opined that the manner in which DEAE had been fed into the steam system prior to the leak caused concentrated levels of the toxin to be released and that plaintiffs' symptoms were caused by DEAE exposure in a building.

Salman v Rosario, 2011 NY Slip Op 06323 (1st Dept., 2011)

Most important, plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Ehrlich, who performed arthroscopic surgery on plaintiff's knee only four months after the accident, opined that "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the motor vehicle accident of 11/28/05 is the proximate cause of her condition, and not from a pre-existing or long standing degenerative process." Plaintiff's surgeon based this conclusion on his observations of plaintiff's knee during surgery (documented in the operative report plaintiff submitted on the original motion) and because plaintiff's MRI films (plaintiff submitted the MRI report on the original motion) did not depict the existence of osteophytes, show evidence of spondylosis or show other symptoms of degenerative processes. Thus, plaintiff's surgeon countered defendant's orthopedist's observation that plaintiff's injuries had no traumatic basis. Plaintiff's surgeon also documented range-of-motion limitations in the knee. Dr. Mian, who also conducted an orthopedic examination in 2008 and found deficits in plaintiff's range of motion, opined that the right knee tear was causally related to the accident. Thus, the evidence more than amply raised an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had sustained a "serious injury" of a permanent nature to the right knee within the meaning of Insurance Law Section 5102(d).

Plaintiff's objective evidence of injury, four months post-accident, was sufficiently contemporaneous to establish that plaintiff had suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the statute. Dr. Ehrlich based his conclusions in large part on his actual observations of plaintiff's knee during the surgery he performed. This conclusion is significant because the doctor was able to see exactly what the injuries were. Moreover, in her affidavit, plaintiff stated that, prior to surgery, she had physical therapy five times a week for three months. It is not unreasonable to try to resolve an injury with physical therapy before resorting to surgery. The circumstances, i.e., plaintiff's initial medical exam that was close in time to the accident, her intensive physical therapy, her young age and eventual surgery, make the four months between the accident and plaintiff's objective medical evidence sufficiently contemporanous to withstand a motion for summary judgment (see Gonzalez v Vasquez, 301 AD2d 438 [2003] [examining physician's affirmation correlating motorist's neck and back pain two years after rear-end collision to quantified range of motion limitations found on physical examination and bulging and herniated discs described in MRI reports, and opining that motorist's symptoms were permanent, raised genuine issue of material fact as to whether motorist suffered serious injury]; see also Rosario v Universal Truck & Trailer Serv., 7 AD3d 306, 309 [2004]).

However, defendants did establish, prima facie, that plaintiff did not suffer a 90/180-day injury, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, given her testimony that she was out of work for only three days (see Pou v E & S Wholesale Meats, Inc., 68 AD3d 446, 447 [2009]).

All concur except Román, J. who dissents in a memorandum as follows:

ROMÁN, J. (dissenting)

To the extent that the majority concludes that renewal of the motion court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Kanate was warranted, and that upon renewal Garcia's evidence precluded summary judgment, I dissent. Here, renewal would only have been warranted in the interest of justice, and to the extent that Garcia's evidentiary submission on renewal failed to establish any injury contemporaneous with her accident, renewal should have been denied.

To the extent that Garcia submitted medical evidence failing to establish treatment earlier than January 25, 2006, two months after this accident, Garcia failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury because she failed to submit competent and admissible medical evidence of injury contemporaneous with her accident (see Ortega v Maldonado, 38 AD3d 388, 388 [2007]; Toulson v Young Han Pae, 13 AD3d 317, 319 [2004]; Alicea v Troy Trans, Inc., 60 AD3d 521, 522 [2009]; Migliaccio v Miruku, 56 AD3d 393, 394 [2008]). Accordingly, the motion court properly granted Kanate's initial motion for summary judgment with respect to all categories of injury under Insurance Law § 5102.

On her motion to renew, seeking to remedy shortcomings in her prior submission, Garcia tendered, inter alia, medical records, not previously submitted, purportedly evincing medical treatment contemporaneous with her accident. Specifically and to the extent relevant here, on renewal Garcia submitted records evincing a medical examination occurring a month after her accident. Nothing submitted competently evinced medical treatment at anytime prior thereto. A motion to renew "must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made, but were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew, and, therefore, not made known to the court" (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568 [1979]). However, when the proponent of renewal seeks to proffer new evidence of which he/she was previously aware but did not provide to the court on a prior motion, renewal may be granted if the interest of justice so dictate (Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v City of New York, 280 AD2d 374, 376-377 [2001]; Mejia v Nanni, 307 AD2d 870, 871 [2003]). Generally, the interest of justice require renewal when the newly submitted evidence changes the outcome of the prior motion. Here, Garcia sought renewal in order to have the motion court consider evidence previously known to her. Accordingly, renewal would have only been warranted if it served the interest of justice. At best, Garcia's medical evidence of injury on renewal established medical treatment beginning no sooner than a month after her accident. A medical examination occurring a month after an accident is not contemporaneous. Given its plain and ordinary meaning, contemporaneous means "existing, happening in the same period of time" (Webster's New World Dictionary 300 [3rd college ed 2004]). Accordingly, insofar as Garcia's evidence on renewal did not evince medical treatment contemporaneous with the accident, renewal in the interest of justice should have been denied.

The majority takes the untenable position that not only is Garcia's medical examination, occurring a month after the accident, contemporaneous with her accident, but paradoxically that the report of her surgeon, who did not see plaintiff for the first time until four months after her accident, is sufficient to establish the causal link between Garcia's knee injury and her accident such that she raised an issue of fact precluding summary judgment in Kanate's favor. First, if a medical examination occurring one month after an accident is not contemporaneous, then an examination occurring four months after an accident is certainly less so (Mancini v Lali NY, Inc., 77 AD3d 797, 798 [2010] [medical findings made by plaintiff's doctor four months after his accident not sufficiently contemporaneous with the accident to establish a serious injury]); Resek v Morreale, 74 AD3d 1043, 1044-145 [2010] [medical findings made by plaintiff's doctor five months after his accident not sufficiently contemporaneous with the accident to establish a serious injury]). Moreover, even if we assume that this report was temporally contemporaneous with her accident, it was nevertheless bereft of any objective, qualitative, or quantitative evidence of injury to her knee (Blackmon v Dinstuhl, 27 AD3d 241, 242 [2006]; Thompson v Abassi, 15 AD3d 95, 98 [2005]). Second, contrary to the majority's assertion, the report of Garcia's orthopedist might have been probative as to her knee injury on the date he performed surgery, but standing alone, his observations on that date could not have been probative as to whether that injury was caused by this accident (see Pommells v Perez, 4 AD3d 101, 101-102 [2004], affd 4 NY3d 566 [2005] [medical opinion as to causation is speculative when the record is bereft of any evidence establishing contemporaneous medical treatment and the doctor proffering opinion sees plaintiff for the first time after a substantial period of time since the accident]; Vaughan v Baez, 305 AD2d 101, 101 (2003); Shinn v Catanzaro, 1 AD3d 195, 198-199 [2003]; Komar v Showers, 227 AD2d 135, 136 [1996]).

The majority relies on two cases in support of its holding, Gonzalez v Vasquez (301 AD2d 438 [2003]) and Rosario v Universal Truck & Trailer Serv., Inc. (7 AD3d 306 [2004]), neither of which bears on the issue of contemporaneous medical treatment and both of which, to the extent that they allow a doctor to establish causation upon an initial examination conducted a substantial time after an accident, are at odds with Vaughan, Shinn, Komar and Pommells.

***

Footnote 1:Although the records from Dr. Cordaro's office are unsworn, it is of no moment. The documents are properly certified as business records (see Mayblum v Schwarzbaum, 253 AD2d 380 [1998]; CPLR 4518[a]), and are referenced only to show plaintiff's complaints and the doctor's referral rather than a medical opinion about a causal relation to the accident.

Matter of New York City 5201-Asbestos Litig., 2011 NY Slip Op 06296 (1st Dept., 2011)

Colgate seeks to question Dr. Sanborn about a hobby allegedly involving asbestos that she mentioned in her consultation note on Karen Tedrick. Dr. Sanborn wrote that "[Tedrick's] father had some sort of hobby activity or other project in the family basement as the patient was growing up, which the patient's brother reports did involve having asbestos in the basement." Tedrick's brother, Richard Konopka, has already been deposed, however, and testified that this hobby referred to a chemistry set that he owned as a teenager. Because the information sought from Dr. Sanborn is available from another source, we agree with the motion court that Dr. Sanborn's deposition should not be compelled (see Ramsey v New York Univ. Hosp. Ctr., 14 AD3d 349 [2005]; CPLR 3101[a][3]; 3101[a][4]).

Lugo v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 06475 (2nd Dept., 2011)

A running theme throughout the Frye hearing was whether the experts considered the medical literature they had reviewed to be "authoritative." Although both Dr. Katz and Dr. Peyster testified that they did not consider any of the literature they had discussed to be "authoritative," Dr. Katz testified that the Volpe textbook and the articles he had addressed were the sources he would consult for the current science in the areas discussed at the hearing. Dr. Peyster testified that he did not consider any medical literature, including his own book, to be "authoritative" because that term implied that everything in the article or study was correct and was not subject to any further changes. Dr. Peyster's reluctance to apply this label to medical literature was echoed by the defendant's expert Dr. Jahre, who agreed that this term was not used frequently to describe medical literature and that doctors relied upon articles not considered to be "authoritative" to assess the state of the science.

***

In addition, we disagree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the theory of causation espoused by the plaintiffs' experts lacked an adequate foundation for admissibility. "The Frye inquiry is separate and distinct from the admissibility question applied to all evidence—whether there is a proper foundation—to determine whether the accepted methods were appropriately employed in a particular case" (Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 447; see People v Wesley, 83 NY2d at 428-429; Jackson v Nutmeg Tech., Inc., 43 AD3d 599, 601). "The focus moves from the general reliability concerns of Frye to the specific reliability of the procedures followed to generate the evidence proffered and whether they establish a foundation for the reception of the evidence at trial" (People v Wesley, 83 NY2d at 429). "The foundation . . . should not include a determination of the court that such evidence is true. That function should be left to the jury" (id. at 425).

****

The Supreme Court's conclusion that the opinion of the plaintiffs' experts lacked an adequate foundation rested largely on its findings that the evidence presented at the Frye hearing established that perinatal ischemia or hypoxia is the overwhelming cause of PVL and that the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts did not eliminate other "more likely possible causes" of Lugo's PVL. In relying upon such reasoning, the Supreme Court, in effect, rendered an assessment as to the ultimate merit of the opinion testimony of the plaintiffs' experts (see People v Wesley, 83 NY2d at 425). Clearly, numerous factual disagreements between the parties' experts were highlighted at the Frye hearing, including, but not limited to, the specific appearance of Lugo's brain MRI abnormalities and their cause. However, these factual disagreements go to the weight to be accorded to the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts by the trier of fact, and not the admissibility of such testimony (see Jackson v Nutmeg Tech., Inc., 43 AD3d at 602).

Signature can be anywhere

Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 06450 (1st Dept., 2011)

Plaintiffs are small business owners who, as lessees, entered into form leases for certain business equipment with defendant Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. (NLS), as lessor. Each plaintiff signed the form lease on page 1. Paragraph 9 ("Insurance") of the form lease, on page 3 thereof, provides in pertinent part: "If Lessee does not provide evidence of insurance [on the leased equipment], Lessee is deemed to have chosen to buy [a] Loss and Destruction waiver [from NLS] at the price in effect, price which Lessor reserves the right to change from time-to-time." Plaintiffs' cause of action for breach of contract is based on NLS's charging them the aforementioned "Loss and Destruction waiver" (LDW) fee for the privilege of not purchasing insurance. Plaintiffs allege that, when they signed the form leases on page 1, they were unaware of the last three pages of the form. On that basis, plaintiffs contend that they are not bound by the LDW fee provision of paragraph 9 (again, on page 3) and that NLS's charging of the LDW fee (in the amount of $4.95) therefore constituted an overcharge and a breach of contract.

In the order appealed from, Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to liability on their cause of action for breach of contract. We reverse and deny the motion. On this record, questions of fact exist that preclude granting plaintiffs summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. Specifically, a factfinder must determine (1) whether plaintiffs received only the first page of the form lease or all four pages, and (2) whether, if plaintiffs received all four pages, they could reasonably have believed that all terms were contained on page 1. The latter question cannot be answered as a matter of law in plaintiffs' favor, given that page 1 of the form lease, which each plaintiff signed, states that it is "Page 1 of 4" and contains a reference, above the lessee's signature, to paragraph 11, which appears on page 3 of the form. Moreover, the record contains evidence that the form lease each plaintiff signed was printed on one sheet of paper, 11 inches wide by 17 inches long, folded in half to create a four-page booklet. We note that there is no legal requirement that a party's signature appear at the end of a written agreement (see Uniform Commercial Code § 1-201, Official Comment 39 [signature or other authentication of a written agreement "may be on any part of the document"]; cf. Riverside S. Planning Corp. v CRP/Extell Riverside, L.P., 60 AD3d 61, 67 [2008], affd 13 NY3d 398 [2009] ["there is no legal requirement that contractual provisions fixing the term of a contract must appear at the end of . . . the document"]). Finally, that the form lease did not specify the amount of the LDW fee did not render the lease or its provision for the LDW fee void (see Uniform Commercial Code § 2A-204[3] {"Although one or more terms are left open, a lease contract does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties have intended to make a lease contract and there is a reasonably certain basis for giving an appropriate remedy"]). Thus, if the LDW fee provision is found to be part of the agreement, NLS is entitled to set the fee, provided the fee is reasonable.

Sumry Judments with a little RJ and JE, all in the 1st Department. One bit of EE in the 2nd.

CPLR R. 3212

Lance Intl., Inc. v First Natl. City Bank, 2011 NY Slip Op 05982 (1^st Dept., 2011)

Contrary to defendant's contention, its defense is that plaintiff lacks capacity to sue, not that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (see Security Pac. Natl. Bank v Evans, 31 AD3d 278, 279-280 [2006], appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 837 [2007]). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, Civil Court did not raise the issue of lack of capacity sua sponte.

While a defense that a party lacks capacity to sue (see CPLR 3211[a][3]) is waived if not raised in a pre-answer motion or in a responsive pleading (see CPLR 3211[e]), plaintiff's lack of capacity did not arise until after joinder of issue, and therefore, defendant did not waive that defense (see George Strokes Elec. & Plumbing v Dye, 240 AD2d 919, 920 [1997]).

A defendant may move for summary judgment based on an unpleaded defense (see e.g. Rogoff v San Juan Racing Assn., 54 NY2d 883, 885 [1981]). Plaintiff can hardly claim prejudice or surprise from defendant's assertion that it lacked capacity to sue. In 1995, it moved to substitute its president as the plaintiff, arguing that he was "the real party in interest by virtue of the dissolution of the corporation."

Defendant's underlying motion for summary judgment was timely (see CPLR 3212[a]). Plaintiff has supplied no proof in the record that Civil Court required defendant to file its summary judgment motion by July 21, 2008. Even if, arguendo, one judge of the Civil Court ordered defendant to file its motion by July 21, 2008, this order was superseded by the parties' October 16, 2008 stipulation, which set a briefing schedule for the motion and was so-ordered by another judge of the Civil Court.

Plaintiff's original note of issue, which was filed on October 19, 2007, "was, in effect, nullifed" (Negron v Helmsley Spear, Inc., 280 AD2d 305 [2001]) when the action was removed from the trial calendar. Therefore, the operative note of issue is the one filed on April 25, 2008 (see Williams v Peralta, 37 AD3d 712, 713 [2007]), and the motion was timely.

Montolio v Negev LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 05985 (1^st Dept., 2011)

Furthermore, although Negev's answer is contained in the record, it is verified only by counsel. The motion also is supported only by counsel's affirmation; no submission was made by anyone with personal knowledge (Lopez v Crotona Ave. Assoc., LP, 39 AD3d 388, 390 [2007]).

RJ and JD

UBS Sec. LLC v Highland Capital Mgt., L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 05979 (1^st Dept., 2011)

The parties appealed, presenting us with the question whether and to what extent the doctrine of res judicata applies to these circumstances. The doctrine dictates that, "as to the parties in a litigation and those in privity with them, a judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the issues of fact and questions of law necessarily decided therein in any subsequent action" (Gramatan Home Inv. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 48l, 485 [1979]). It used to be the rule that, even if the two actions arose out of an identical course of dealing, the second was not barred by res judicata if "the requisite elements of proof and hence the evidence necessary to sustain recovery var[ied] materially" (Smith v Kirkpatrick, 305 NY 66, 72 [1953]). However, the Court of Appeals expressly rejected that method of analysis in O'Brien v City of Syracuse (54 NY2d 353 [1981]). There it held that "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" (54 NY2d at 357). The Court further stated:

"[w]hen alternative theories are available to recover what is essentially the same relief for harm arising out of the same or related facts such as would constitute a single factual grouping' (Restatement, Judgments 2d, § 61 [Tent Draft No. 5]), the circumstance that the theories involve materially different elements of proof will not justify presenting the claim by two different actions" (id. at 357-358).

Notably, regarding this point, the Court stated in a footnote that, insofar as Smith (305 NY at 66) "may be to the contrary, it is overruled" (id.). Whether facts are deemed to constitute a single factual grouping for res judicata purposes "depends on how the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether . . . their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage" (Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193 [1981] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

Here, to the extent the claims against Highland in the new complaint implicate events alleged to have taken place before the filing of the original complaint, res judicata applies. That is because UBS's claims against Highland in the original action and in this action all arise out of the restructured warehousing transaction. While the claim against Highland in the original action was based on Highland's alleged obligation to indemnify UBS for actions taken by the affiliated funds, and the claims against Highland in the second action arose out of Highland's alleged manipulation of those funds, they form a single factual grouping. Both are related to the same business deal and to the diminution in the value of the securities placed with UBS as a result of that deal. Thus, the claims form a convenient trial unit. Moreover, it can hardly be said that the claims in the two actions are so unrelated that reasonable business people, not to mention the parties themselves, would have expected them to be tried separately (see Smith, 54 NY2d at 192-193). Also, we note that, when seeking permission to amend the complaint, UBS itself asserted that "the new causes of action arise out of the same or related circumstances and events as UBS's pending claims."

Further, the Court of Appeals' holding in Xiao Yang Chen v Fischer (6 NY3d 94 [2005]) [*6]does not support UBS's position. Nor does it represent a shift in res judicata jurisprudence, as UBS argues. The circumstances of this case bear no resemblance to those in Xiao Yang Chen, which involved a woman who, in a previously filed separate action, was granted a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. In the divorce action, the plaintiff supported her cruel and inhuman treatment claim with an allegation that her husband had slapped her, causing injury. While the divorce action was pending, the plaintiff commenced a separate personal injury action seeking damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and injuries arising out of the alleged assault. In finding that res judicata did not bar the personal injury action, the Court of Appeals noted that the two actions sought different types of relief and did not constitute a convenient trial unit. The Court of Appeals also noted other significant distinctions, such as the facts that divorce actions are typically decided by a judge and that attorneys in personal injury actions may be compensated by a contingency fee, and the policy consideration of expediting divorce proceedings. None of those considerations applies here, where the action seeks money damages arising only in connection with a commercial transaction.

While we have concluded that res judicata bars the claims in this action, we still must address UBS's assertion that it would be fundamentally unfair to apply res judicata under the circumstances of this case. UBS bases this argument primarily on the contention that it would have moved to amend the complaint in the original action while that action was still in existence (i.e., before this Court dismissed it), but for the necessity that it comply with the Commercial Part rules requiring that it first seek permission in a letter. However, this argument fails because, even had they made such a motion, the ultimate result would have been the same. As evidenced by the affidavit of its former employee, UBS was aware of the facts that support the claims in this action as long ago as November 2008. That was before UBS filed the original action.

Indeed, the evidence that the former employee admits had been gathered by UBS at that time supports all the claims asserted against Highland in this action. That UBS received additional evidence in the document production that Highland made shortly before UBS sought to amend its complaint is irrelevant. The proper inquiry for res judicata purposes is when UBS could have raised a cause of action, not when it had enough evidence to prove the claim at trial (see Castellano v City of New York, 251 AD2d 194, 195 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 817 [1998], cert denied 526 US 1131 [1999]). In this regard, we note that, based on what it admits it knew in November 2008, UBS could have pleaded its fraud claim with the requisite particularity at that time, since the facts available would have permitted a "reasonable inference of the alleged conduct" (Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 492 [2008]). Because UBS could have asserted the instant claims in the original complaint or moved to amend well before that complaint was dismissed by this Court, we are not persuaded that the Rules of the Commercial Part affected the eventual result. Nevertheless, to the extent that the third and fourth causes of action, alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraudulent conveyance, respectively, rely on conduct alleged to have occurred after the commencement of the prior action, such claims should be allowed.

Nor do we share the motion court's concern that it is unfair to apply res judicata where Highland remains a party to the action by dint of its counterclaims. It would likewise be unjust to hold that a defendant that chooses to assert a counterclaim forfeits its right to assert the defense of res judicata with respect to the main claims. Indeed, to so hold would deal a blow to judicial economy since counterclaims are not compulsory in New York (67-25 Dartmouth St. Corp. v Syllman, 29 AD3d 888, 889 [2006]), and defendants would merely assert their own [*7]claims in separate actions to avoid the application of res judicata.

Kvest LLC v Cohen, 2011 NY Slip Op 05984 (1^st Dept., 2011)

Plaintiff is not barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel from asserting that the disclaimer is valid because it did not prevail in the declaratory judgment action (see Rothstein & Hoffman Elec. Serv., Inc. v Gong Park Realty Corp., 37 AD3d 206, 207 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 812 [2007]; Jones Lang Wootton USA v LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, 243 AD2d 168, 176 [1998], lv dismissed 92 NY2d 962 [1998]). However, contrary to plaintiff's argument, the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not bind defendants to the declaratory judgment court's determination that defendants did not timely notify the carrier of the claim letter. Defendants were not parties to that action. The doctrine of collateral estoppel is binding only upon parties or their privies who have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate issues determined in prior proceedings (see Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485-486 [1979]).

Defendants state in their affidavit that they mailed a copy of the claim letter to the carrier [*2]on May 6, 2004, two days after they received it from plaintiff. However, a notice of occurrence/claim form prepared by defendants on October 2, 2004 indicates that the claim had not previously been reported. This raises a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants timely notified the carrier of the claim letter.

Contrary to defendants' assertion, the damages recoverable in this action can include plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in defending the carrier's declaratory judgment action in its effort to mitigate its damages (see Martini v Lafayette Studio Corp., 273 AD2d 112, 114 [2000]). On the other hand, the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action was properly dismissed as the facts establish that the parties had nothing more than a typical insurance broker-customer relationship (see e.g. Murphy v Kuhn, 90 NY2d 266, 270-271 [1997]).

Equitable estoppel

Giannetto v Knee, 82 AD3d 1043 (2^nd Dept. 2011)

The Supreme Court erred, however, in granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the malpractice cause of action against Knee on the basis of the statute of limitations. Although the defendants established, prima facie, that the action was commenced well beyond the 2½-year statute of limitations applicable to claims alleging dental malpractice (see CPLR 214-a), the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Knee should be equitably estopped from raising the defense of the statute of limitations. "Equitable estoppel is appropriate where the plaintiff is prevented from filing an action within the applicable statute of limitations due to his or her reasonable reliance on deception, fraud or misrepresentations by the defendant" (Putter v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 7 NY3d 548, 552-553 [2006]; see Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d at 448-449). Whether equitable estoppel applies is generally a question of fact (see Vigliotti v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 24 AD3d 752, 755 [2005]), and a mere failure to disclose malpractice or diagnose a condition does not give rise to equitable estoppel (see Rizk v Cohen, 73 NY2d 98 [1989]; Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d at 450; Reichenbaum v Cilmi, 64 AD3d 693, 695 [2009]; Bevinetto v Steven Plotnick, M.D., P.C., 51 AD3d 612, 614 [2008]; Dombroski v Samaritan Hosp., 47 AD3d 80 [2007]; Coopersmith v Gold, 172 AD2d 982, 983 [1991]). Here, the plaintiff's sworn allegations raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Knee concealed his malpractice by knowingly misrepresenting her condition and by bonding tooth number 21, a procedure that the plaintiff alleges he knew was not effective (see Vigliotti v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 24 AD3d at 755; Szajna v Rand, 131 AD2d 840, 841 [1987]). Additionally, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she commenced the action within a reasonable time after her discovery of the alleged malpractice (see Edmonds v Getchonis, 150 AD2d 879, 882 [1989]).

Procedural cornucopia and 5015

CPLR R. 5015

CPLR § 5501

Pollak v Moore, 2011 NY Slip Op 05351 (1^st Dept. 2011)

Plaintiff's appeal from the judgment does not bring up for review an order of the motion court, entered November 20, 2009 (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), which was marked "final disposition" and, in fact, disposed of all of plaintiff's claims, leaving nothing further in the action that would require non-ministerial judicial action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Burke v Crosson, 85 NY2d 10 [1995]). While the judgment explicitly referred to the November 20, 2009 order, and such order "affected" the judgment, the November 20, 2009 order did not meet the further criterion that the underlying order sought to be reviewed on appeal from the judgment be "non-final" (see CPLR 5501[a][1]). Plaintiff abandoned his appeal from the November 20, 2009 order, and cannot revive that appeal by the expedient of effecting a ministerial entry of judgment upon the final order after expiration of the time to perfect the initial appeal.

Assuming we were able to reach plaintiff's appellate arguments on the merits, we would find them unavailing. Plaintiff's initial argument that Justice Lowe's November 20, 2009 order was void as it was dated approximately two weeks after Justice Lowe had transferred the action to another IAS part, and such transfer was based on his recusing himself from the action, is unsupported by the record. A review of the relevant transfer orders indicates that the transfer of the action to Justice Walter Tolub, who was handling a related foreclosure proceeding, was done for judicial economy purposes. Moreover, it is noted that prior to the transfer, defendants' motion to dismiss was fully submitted and orally argued before Justice Lowe, and Justice Lowe informed the parties that he would render a decision on the motion (see generally Hudson View II Assoc. v Miller, 282 AD2d 345 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937 [2001]; Zelman v Lipsig, 178 AD2d 298 [1991]). Plaintiff offers no evidence to indicate bias or impropriety in the rendering of the November 20, 2009 order (see generally Hudson View II Assoc., 282 AD2d 345). We find plaintiff's related due process arguments unavailing.

We find that plaintiff's breach of contract claim, which was predicated upon a purported agreement by defendants to sell plaintiff a portion of a lot (with improvements thereon) pending formal division of the lot on the New York City tax map, to be barred by the statute of frauds. The documentary evidence established that the purported agreement was not signed by all the parties to be charged (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[2]; Naldi v Grunberg, 80 AD3d 1 [2010], lv denied __ NY3d __, 2011 NY Slip Op 71494 [2011]), the sale terms were modified by plaintiff, and the parties had an opportunity to execute plaintiff's marked-up contract of sale, but did not elect to execute such agreement. To the extent plaintiff relies on other writings to argue that they demonstrate the parties to be charged agreed to the sale of a portion of a lot to plaintiff (see generally WWP Group USA v Interpublic Group of Cos., 228 AD2d 296 [1996]), we find that the writings do no more than reflect interest of the parties to be charged in effecting a sale of the portion of the property to plaintiff upon appropriate terms.Plaintiff's alternative claims sounding in breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation were duplicative of his breach of contract claims and, as such, properly dismissed (see J.E. Morgan Knitting Mills v Reeves Bros., 243 AD2d 422 [1997]; cf. Deerfield Communications Corp. v Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 68 NY2d 954 [1986]). Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment was unsupported by evidence that defendants, whose interest in the property at stake was foreclosed against, were enriched at plaintiff's expense (see generally Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v State of New York, 30 NY2d 415 (1972), cert denied 414 US 829 [1973]; Weiner v Lazard Freres & Co., 241 AD2d 114, 119-120 [1998]).

Insofar as plaintiff requested leave to serve a second amended complaint, denial of such relief was a proper exercise of discretion as plaintiff failed to annex a copy of a proposed second amended pleading to his motion papers, and he did not otherwise offer an affidavit of merit or any "new" facts as would overcome the legal defects in his prior two complaints (see generally Jebran v LaSalle Bus. Credit, LLC, 33 AD3d 424 [2006]; Gonik v Israel Discount Bank of N.Y., 80 AD3d 437, 438-439 [2011]).

Kohn v Kohn, 2011 NY Slip Op 06095 (2^nd Dept., 2011)

To vacate her default in opposing the plaintiff's motion, the defendant was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for her default and a potentially meritorious opposition (see Remote Meter Tech. of NY, Inc. v Aris Realty Corp., 83 AD3d 1030; Bazoyah v Herschitz, 79 AD3d 1081). A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Dimitriadis v Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y., 84 AD3d 1150). The Supreme Court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005), where the claim of law office failure is supported by a "detailed and credible" explanation of the default (see Remote Meter Tech. of N.Y., Inc. v Aris Realty Corp., 83 AD3d 1030; Winthrop Univ. Hosp. v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 78 AD3d 685, 686). Here, the defendant's claim of law office failure was supported by a "detailed and credible" explanation of the default, and the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting that explanation. Moreover, the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to the plaintiff's motion.

Herosay

Fiallos v New York Univ. Hosp., 2011 NY Slip Op 05623 (1^st Dept. 2011)

In making its motion, defendant assumed the burden of disproving plaintiff's Bronx County residence (see e.g. Clarke v Ahern Prod. Servs., 181 AD2d 514 [1992]). Counsel's affidavit by which he cites unspecified "investigative efforts" that revealed that someone other than plaintiff occupied the apartment amounts to mere hearsay and is insufficient to carry defendant's initial burden (see Hurley v Union Trust Co. of Rochester, 244 App Div 590 [1935]). Even if accepted, defendant's proof would fall far short of establishing that plaintiff did not live anywhere in Bronx County when this action was commenced. Accordingly, defendant's failure to meet its initial burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief makes it unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition to the motion (see e.g. Frees v Frank & Walter Eberhart L.P. No.1, 71 AD3d 491, 492 [2010]).

Petrillo v Town of Hempstead, 2011 NY Slip Op 05474 (2^nd Dept. 2011)

Certain statements allegedly made by his decedent to him concerning the condition at issue constituted inadmissible hearsay (see Nucci v Proper, 95 NY2d 597, 602; Roldan v New York Univ., 81 AD3d 625; Rodriguez v Sixth President, Inc., 4 AD3d 406, 407).

Unjust Enrichment

Superior Officers Council Health & Welfare Fund v Empire HealthChoice Assur., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 05625 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

The unjust enrichment or quasi contract claim was similarly precluded by the existence of a valid agreement governing the subject matter of plaintiffs' claim (id. at 388). Plaintiffs also failed to state a claim under General Business Law § 349 because the conduct alleged in the complaint was not consumer-oriented (see New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 320 [1995]). Finally, the claim based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was redundant since it is intrinsically tied to the
damages sought under the contract claim (see Bostany v Trump Org. LLC, 73 AD3d 479, 481 [2010]).

Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt. L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 05621 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

"A quasi contract' only applies in the absence of an express agreement . . . in order to prevent a party's unjust enrichment" (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]). Plaintiffs should have been permitted to plead both contract and quasi-contract claims in the alternative (see Winick Realty Group LLC v Austin & Assoc., 51 AD3d 408 [2008]). The court erred in dismissing plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim since it was based on allegations that defendants were unjustly enriched by withholding plaintiffs' 2005 compensation and reinvesting it without their permission, and no contract governing those actions existed. The court also erred in concluding, at this pleading stage, that plaintiffs' compensation did not constitute "wages" under Labor Law § 190, because plaintiffs alleged that the compensation was not "entirely discretionary" and was based on plaintiffs' "own personal productivity," and not solely upon defendants' overall financial success (see Truelove v Northeast Capital & Advisory, 95 NY2d 220 [2000]).

1133 Taconic, LLC v Lartrym Servs., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 05470 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"To prevail on a claim of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant benefitted at the plaintiff's expense and that equity and good conscience require restitution" (Whitman Realty Group, Inc. v Galano, 41 AD3d 590, 592-593; see Cruz v McAneney, 31 AD3d 54, 59). "Enrichment alone will not suffice to invoke the remedial powers of a court of equity. Critical is that under the circumstances and as between the two parties to the transaction the enrichment be unjust" (McGrath v Hilding, 41 NY2d 625, 629; see Old Republic Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. v Cardinal Abstract Corp., 14 AD3d 678, 680).

Chi Kee Pang v Synlyco, Ltd., 2011 NY Slip Op 08553 (2nd Dept., 2011)

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the instant action was time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations. The cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract is barred by the six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[2]). The plaintiff's contention that the statute of limitations was tolled by the defendants' acknowledgment of the parties' alleged oral agreement is without merit, since the plaintiff failed to submit a writing to that effect, and General Obligations Law § 17-101 provides, in relevant part, that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, "[a]n acknowledgment or promise contained in a writing signed by the party to be charged thereby is the only competent evidence of a new or continuing contract whereby to take an action out of the operation of the provision of limitations of time for commencing actions under the civil practice law and rules"(emphasis supplied) (cf. Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assoc., LLC v Lajaunie, 54 AD3d 813, 815). The cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment, which is indistinguishable from the breach of contract cause of action, is, consequently, also barred by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213(2) (see EMD Constr. Corp. v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 70 AD3d 893, 894; 37 Park Dr. S., Inc. v Duffy, 63 AD3d 1040, 1041). The cause of action to recover damages for fraud is time-barred inasmuch as the action was not commenced within six years of the date on which the cause of action accrued or within two years after the time the plaintiff could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud (see CPLR 213[8]; Prand Corp. v County of Suffolk, 62 AD3d 681, 683; Pericon v Ruck, 56 AD3d 635, 636). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the doctrine of equitable estoppel is unavailable to toll the statute of limitations since, in response to the defendants' prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any action or representation by the defendants induced him to forego the timely commencement of an action to enforce his rights under the alleged oral agreement (see Javaheri v Old Cedar Dev. Corp., 84 AD3d 881, 886; Jones v Safi, 58 AD3d 603, 604).

RJ and CE and EE

Breslin Realty Dev. Corp. v Shaw, 2010 NY Slip Op 00087 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

II. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment precludes reconsideration of all claims which could have or should have been litigated in the prior proceedings against the same party (see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347). The doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrower species of res judicata, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in the prior action or proceeding, and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 501-502). Once the party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel establishes that the identical issue was "material" (emphasis supplied) to a prior judicial or quasi-judicial determination, the party to be estopped bears the burden of establishing the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action or proceeding (id.). Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the proponent of the doctrine of collateral estoppel need not demonstrate that the particular theory in support of a cause of action was actually raised and litigated in the prior action or proceeding (see Matter of Schulz v New York State Legislature, 278 AD2d 710, 711; Williams v Steinberg, 211 AD2d 597; Lanzano v City of New York, 202 AD2d 378, 379; Sokol v Sokol, 113 F3d 303, 306).

Where the prior adjudication involved the same parties and the same cause of action, res judicata applies. "Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the parties on the same cause of action . . . As a general rule, once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'" (Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 347, quoting O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; see Insurance Co. of State of Pa. v HSBC Bank USA, 10 NY3d 32).

Union St. Tower, LLC v Richmond, 2011 NY Slip Op 03834 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The doctrine of res judicata " operates to preclude the renewal of issues actually litigated and resolved in a prior proceeding as well as claims for different relief which arise out of the same factual grouping or transaction and which should have or could have been resolved in the prior proceeding'" (Luscher v Arrua, 21 AD3d 1005, 1006-1007, quoting Koether v Generalow, 213 AD2d 379, 380). To determine what "factual grouping" constitutes a "transaction," the court must consider how " the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether . . . their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage'" (Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192-193, quoting Restatement, Judgments 2d [Tent Draft No. 1], § 61; see Braunstein v Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53). Under New York's transactional approach to the doctrine of res judicata, "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" (O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357).

The first and second counterclaims in this action are barred by res judicata because those claims could have been resolved in the March 2004 action (see Jennings v City of Glens Falls Indus. Dev. Agency, 9 AD3d 773, 774). These counterclaims, when compared with the causes of action in the March 2004 action "are related in time, space, origin, [and] motivation" (Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d at 192-193). They (1) originate from the identical agreement, (2) span the same period of time, (3) involve the same chief participants, and (4) involve the same motivation of Richmond to reclaim an ownership interest in Lot 4. "Under these circumstances, it is almost impossible to resist the conclusion that the over-all transaction here formed a convenient trial unit and that this view conforms to reasonable expectations" (Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d at 193 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Vitello v Amboy Bus Co., 83 AD3d 932 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party is precluded from "relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same" (Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]). Two elements must be established: (1) that "the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action and is decisive in the present action"; and (2) that the precluded party "must have had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination" (D'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 664 [1990]). Collateral estoppel is applicable to quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies, including the WCB (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d at 499; O'Gorman v Journal News Westchester, 2 AD3d 815, 816 [2003]; Rigopolous v American Museum of Natural History, 297 AD2d 728, 729 [2002]).

Here, the Decision of the WCB does not collaterally estop the defendant from arguing that it was the plaintiff's employer, because there is no indication in the record that this was a disputed issue at the workers' compensation proceeding or that the WCB specifically adjudicated this issue (see Weitz v Anzek Constr. Corp., 65 AD3d 678, 679 [2009]; Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., 257 AD2d 586, 587 [1999]). Therefore, the Supreme Court improperly concluded that the defendant was collaterally estopped from arguing that it was the plaintiff's employer.

John Hollings, Inc. v Nick & Duke, LLC, 83 AD3d 444 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

The issue whether plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of its use of the subject premises was fully and fairly litigated, and necessarily decided, in the prior Civil Court proceeding (see Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]). Plaintiff's eviction was based on uncured lease violations alone and had no connection to the wrongs it alleges against defendants in this action.

We find that plaintiff's conduct in commencing this action was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Town of Huntington v Beechwood Carmen Bldg. Corp., 82 AD3d 1203 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties or those in privity with them of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding" (Goldstein v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 32 AD3d 821, 821 [2006]; see Greenstone/Fontana Corp. v Feldstein, 72 AD3d 890, 893 [2010]). "A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without reservation of right or limitation of the claims disposed of is entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata" (Liberty Assoc. v Etkin, 69 AD3d 681, 682-683 [2010]; see Greenstone/Fontana Corp. v Feldstein, 72 AD3d at 893). Here, the Town's current claims against SBJ were either raised or could have been raised in the previous action which was discontinued with prejudice against SBJ and, thus, the Town is precluded under principles of res judicata from litigating claims against SBJ arising from the same transaction. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed insofar as asserted against SBJ.

OrthoTec, LLC v Healthpoint Capital, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 04533 (App. DIv., 1st 2011)

To be sure, "collateral estoppel will bar the subsequent independent action . . . if . . . the moving party was in fact given a hearing on the motion that was the equivalent of a trial with oral testimony" (id. at 668, 123 Cal Rptr 2d at 170-171 [emphasis added]). However, plaintiff was not given such a hearing. It was given the opportunity for a hearing, but it chose not to exercise that opportunity.

Defendants' reliance on Barker v Hull (191 Cal App 3d 221, 226, 236 Cal Rptr 285, 289 [1987]) is unavailing, since the evidence on the motion which led to the decision to which defendants seek to give preclusive effect was indeed restricted.

Dier v Suffolk County Water Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 03993 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court erred in concluding that the appellant is estopped from asserting a defense based on the plaintiff's failure to serve a timely notice of claim. Equitable estoppel against a public corporation will lie only when the conduct of the public corporation was calculated to, or negligently did, mislead or discourage a party from serving a timely notice of claim, and when that conduct was justifiably relied upon by that party (see Bender v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 38 NY2d 662; Dorce v United Rentals N. Am., Inc., 78 AD3d 1110, 1111; Vandermast v New York City Tr. Auth., 71 AD3d 1127; Mohl v Town of Riverhead, 62 AD3d 969; Wade v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 16 AD3d 677). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the appellant engaged in any misleading conduct that would support a finding of equitable estoppel (see Dorce v United Rentals N. Am., Inc., 78 AD3d at 1111; Wade v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 16 AD3d 677; Walter H. Poppe Gen. Contr. v Town of Ramapo, 280 AD2d 667, 668; Cappadonna v New York City Tr. Auth., 187 AD2d 691, 692; Nicholas v City of New York, 130 AD2d 470). The fact that the appellant conducted an examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h prior to making its motion to dismiss does not justify a finding of estoppel (see Hochberg v City of New York, 63 NY2d 665; Wade v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 16 AD3d 677; Rodriguez v City of New York, 169 AD2d 532, 533; Ceely v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 162 AD2d 492). Accordingly, the appellant's motion, in effect, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for the plaintiff's failure to serve a timely notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) should have been granted.

CPLR 5513 5701 5526 3212b 5501

CPLR R. 5513 Time to take appeal, cross-appeal or move for permission to appeal

CPLR § 5701 Appeals to appellate division from supreme and county courts

CPLR R. 5526 Content and form of record on appeal

CPLR § 5501 Scope of review

CPLR R. 3212 Motion for summary judgment

Fazio v Costco Wholesale Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 04740 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

We reject plaintiffs' contention that the appeal is untimely because defendant filed its notice of appeal 32 days after it was served electronically with notice of the entry of the order (see CPLR 5513[a]). A New York State Court Electronic Filing (NYSCEF) site confirmation shows the date on which the order with notice of entry was filed electronically and e-mail notifications were sent to counsel for the parties. However, the NYSCEF site's transmission of notification of the entry to e-mail service addresses "shall not constitute service of notice of entry by any party" (22 NYCRR 202.5b[h][3]). "A party shall serve notice of entry of an order . . . on another party by serving a copy of the notification . . . and an express statement that the transmittal constitutes notice of entry" (id.). The only affidavit of service in the record shows that the notice of entry was served on defendant by mail. Thus, defendant had 35 days to notice its appeal (see CPLR 2103[b][2]).

Gross v 141-30 84th Rd. Apt. Owners Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 04746 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Although Supreme Court's order was not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701[a][2]), in the interest of judicial economy, we nostra sponte deem the notice of appeal a motion for leave to appeal and grant the motion (see CPLR 5701[c]; Winn v Tvedt, 67 AD3d 569 [2009]).

Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's application, since plaintiff failed to show that defendants' noncompliance with the court's discovery orders was "willful, contumacious or due to bad faith" (Weissman v 20 E. 9th St. Corp., 48 AD3d 242, 243 [2008]; Dauria v City of New York, 127 AD2d 459, 460 [1987]). Indeed, the record shows that defendants provided plaintiff with the discovery owed pursuant to Supreme Court's most recent order. Prior to that order, most of the delays in the discovery schedule were due to plaintiff's actions. Where, as here, delays in discovery were caused by both parties' actions, the unilateral and drastic sanction of striking the pleadings is inappropriate (Daimlerchrysler Ins. Co. v Seck, 82 AD3d 581 [2011]; Sifonte v Carol Gardens Hous. Co., 70 AD2d 563, 564 [1979]).

Block 6222 Constr. Corp. v Sobhani, 2011 NY Slip Op 04614 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal, which must contain all of the relevant papers that were before the Supreme Court" (Wen Zong Yu v Hua Fan, 65 AD3d 1335, 1335; see CPLR 5526; Cohen v Wallace & Minchenberg, 39 AD3d 689; Matter of Remy v Mitchell, 60 AD3d 860). Since, under the circumstances, the record here is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits, the appeal must be dismissed (see Emco Tech Constr. Corp. v Pilavas, 68 AD3d 918, 918-919; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Vargas, 288 AD2d 309, 310).

Cocom-Tambriz v Surita Demolition Contr., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 04622 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Moreover, this Court has the authority to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party with respect to an issue that was the subject of the motion before the Supreme Court (see CPLR 3212[b]; Harsch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 781, 784; Nassau Plaza Assoc., L.P. v Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 74 AD3d 1159, 1160). Accordingly, upon searching the record, we award summary judgment to the defendants third-party plaintiffs on the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a grave injury.

Williams v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 04662 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

Venue and Jurisdiction

CPLR § 510 Grounds for change of place of trial

CPLR R. 511 Change of place of trial

CPLR R. 3211(a)(8)the court has not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant

CPLR § 302 Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
(a) Acts which are the basis of jurisdiction
(1) transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state

Non Con

CPLR R. 327 Inconvenient forum

CRT Invs., Ltd. v BDO Seidman, LLP, 2011 NY Slip Op 04816 (App. DIv., 1st 2011)

This litigation arises out of plaintiffs' investment in the Ascot Fund, Limited, a Cayman Islands hedge fund audited by BDO Tortuga, which was a "feeder fund" for Ascot Partners, L.P., a New York hedge fund audited by BDO Seidman. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, negligence, and gross negligence against these outside auditors for failing to disclose that the fund was ultimately managed by Bernard Madoff.

Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the existence of personal jurisdiction over BDO Tortuga under New York's long arm statute (Pramer S.C.A. v Abaplus Intl. Corp., 76 AD3d 89, 95 [2010]). Plaintiffs failed to rebut defendant's affidavit (see Roldan v Dexter Folder Co., 178 AD2d 589, 590 [1991]), which established that BDO Tortuga has no presence in New York, that it performed the audit of the Ascot Fund in the Cayman Islands, pursuant to engagement letters executed in, and sent from, the Cayman Islands, and that there were only limited emails with anyone in New York "affiliated in any way with Ascot Fund." Although plaintiffs argue that BDO Tortuga relied upon the audit work that BDO Seidman had performed with respect to the existence and valuation of Ascot Partners and Ascot Fund's investments, there is no basis to conclude that BDO Tortuga should have reasonably expected to defend its actions in New York (see Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 466 [1988]). All of the relevant parties to the cause of action (plaintiff, defendant, and audit client), and all of the work that BDO Tortuga performed were in the Cayman Islands. Nor does sending a few emails and engagement letters into New York alter this result (see Kimco Exch. Place Corp. v Thomas Benz, Inc., 34 AD3d 433, 434 [2006], lv denied 9 NY3d 803 [2007]).

Plaintiffs' alternative argument, that BDO Tortuga is subject to personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(3), is also unavailing. In the context of a commercial tort, where the damage is solely economic, the situs of commercial injury is where the original critical events associated with the action or dispute took place, not where any financial loss or damages occurred (see O'Brien v Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., 305 AD2d 199, 201-02 [2003]; Mid-Atlantic Residential Invs. Ltd. Partnership v McGuire, 166 AD2d 205, 206-07 [1990]). Plaintiff's claim that it was sold the investment in New York is irrelevant, because the injury did not arise out of its purchase of the investment here, but, rather, out of BDO Tortuga's alleged failure to appropriately perform its audit services. Defendants' affidavit also established that BDO Tortuga did not derive "substantial revenue" from interstate or international commerce (see LaMarca v Pak-Mor Mfg. Co., 95 NY2d 210, 214 [2000]).

Berk v Linnehan, 2011 NY Slip Op 04820 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

The court properly denied defendants' motion for a change of venue to Suffolk County. Defendants failed to make the requisite showing that their allegedly inconvenienced non-party witnesses were actually contacted and were willing to testify (see Gissen v Boy Scouts of Am., 26 AD3d 289 [2006]; Gluck v Pond House Farm, Inc., 271 AD2d 334 [2000]; CPLR 510[3]). Defendants also failed to set forth the substance and materiality of the testimony of at least two of the three witnesses.

Koskar v Ford Motor Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 04636 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to stay or dismiss an action when, although it may have jurisdiction over a claim, the court determines that "in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum" (CPLR 327[a]). The defendant bears the burden on a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens to "demonstrate relevant private or public interest factors which militate against accepting the litigation" (Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479, cert denied 469 US 1108). "On such a motion, the Supreme Court is to weigh the parties' residencies, the location of the witnesses and any hardship caused by the choice of forum, the availability of an alternative forum, the situs of the action, and the burden on the New York court system" (Tiger Sourcing Ltd. v GMAC Commercial Fin. Corporation-Can., 66 AD3d 1002, 1003; see Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028; Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d 964, 966). No one factor is dispositive (see Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d at 966; Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d 846, 848). The Supreme Court's determination should not be disturbed unless the court improvidently exercised its discretion or failed to consider the relevant factors (see Smolik v Turner Constr. Co., 48 AD3d 452, 453-454; Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d at 848).

Here, the defendant Sail Trans Corp. failed to meet its burden of establishing that New York is an inconvenient forum for this consolidated action. Thus, the Supreme Court's determination denying that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground of forum non conveniens was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474; Salzstein v Salzstein, 70 AD3d 806; Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028).

That branch of the appellant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) was not addressed by the Supreme Court and, thus, remains pending and undecided (see Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543).

U.S. Bank, Natl. Assn. v Arias, 2011 NY Slip Op 05487 (App. DIv., 2nd 2011)

By order to show cause dated January 27, 2010, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion in its entirety, without conducting a hearing. We reverse.

"A process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service" (Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d 716, 716). "Although a defendant's sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server's affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing (see Skyline Agency v Coppotelli, Inc., 117 AD2d 135, 139), no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavits'" (Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d at 716, quoting Simonds v Grobman, 277 AD2d 369, 370).

Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining the defendant's motion without first conducting a hearing. The process server's affidavits constituted prima facie evidence of proper service (see Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d at 716). However, to rebut that showing, the defendant submitted a sworn denial of service containing specific facts to rebut the presumption of proper service. Furthermore, in replying to contentions raised by the plaintiff in its opposition papers, the defendant submitted documentary evidence supporting his claim that he did not reside at the subject premises or at the Long Island City address in 2008. The defendant's submission was sufficient to rebut the prima facie showing of proper service, and to necessitate a hearing. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing to determine whether the defendant was properly served with process pursuant to CPLR 308(2), and for a new determination thereafter of his motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Sufficient Start

Marist Coll. v Brady, 2011 NY Slip Op 04638 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in deciding, on the merits, that branch of the appellants' application which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Fugazy v Fugazy, 44 AD3d 613, 614). As the party seeking to assert personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proof on this issue (see Alden Personnel, Inc. v David, 38 AD3d 697, 698; Brandt v Toraby, 273 AD2d 429, 430). To successfully oppose a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) on the ground that discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction is necessary, the plaintiff did not need to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, but instead only needed to set forth "a sufficient start, and [show its] position not to be frivolous" (Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467; see Shore Pharm. Providers, Inc. v Oakwood Care Ctr., Inc., 65 AD3d 623, 624; American BankNote Corp. v Daniele, 45 AD3d 338, 340; Cordero v City of New York, 236 AD2d 577, 578).

Since the plaintiff established that facts " may exist'" to exercise personal jurisdiction over the appellants and has made a "sufficient start" to warrant further discovery on that issue, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' application which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction (Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d at 467; see Shore Pharm. Providers, Inc. v Oakwood Care Ctr., Inc., 65 AD3d at 624; Castillo v Star Leasing Co., 69 AD3d 551, 552; cf. Lang v Wycoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 55 AD3d 793, 794; Roldan v Dexter Folder Co., 178 AD2d 589, 589). However, since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the appellants were subject to the Supreme Court's long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) (cf. Alden Personnel, Inc. v David, 38 AD3d at 698), we modify the order appealed from to allow the appellants to seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) upon the completion of discovery (see Ying Jun Chen v Lei Shi, 19 AD3d 407, 407-408; Lettieri v Cushing, 80 AD3d 574, 575-576).

HBK Master Fund L.P. v Troika Dialog USA, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 05569 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Plaintiffs made a "sufficient start" in demonstrating that the Russian defendants were doing business in New York through their direct or indirect subsidiaries to warrant further discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction, including whether the parents exercised control over the subsidiaries and are therefore subject to New York's long-arm jurisdiction (see Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]; Edelman v Taittinger, S.A., 298 AD2d 301, 302 [2002]).

OrthoTec, LLC v Healthpoint Capital, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 04533 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

We do not find that "in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in" France (see CPLR 327[a]). "Generally, unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed" (Anagnostou v Stifel, 204 AD2d 61, 61 [1994] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). This is true even though plaintiff is not a New York resident (see Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v Honeywell Intl. Inc., 48 AD3d 225, 226 [2008]; Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v Banca Intesa S.p.A., 26 AD3d 286, 287 [2006]). The fact that defendants are New York residents weighs against forum non conveniens dismissal (see e.g. Anagnostou, 204 AD2d at 62). Even if some documents will have to be translated from French into English, that does not require dismissal (see e.g. American BankNote Corp. v Daniele, 45 AD3d 338, 340 [2007]).

5015

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or order
(a) On motion
(1) excusable default…
(2) newly-discovered evidence…
(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party
(4) lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order
(5) reversal, modification or vacatur of a prior judgment or order upon which it is based

CPLR § 3126 Penalties for refusal to comply with order or to disclose

Dimitriadis v Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y., 2011 NY Slip Op 04410 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Gerdes v Canales, 74 AD3d 1017; Scala v 4020 Jerusalem Owners, Inc., 72 AD3d 926, 927; Matter of Lee v Morgan, 67 AD3d 681, 682; Holt Constr. Corp. v J & R Music World, 294 AD2d 540). To obtain relief from a default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the moving defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Felsen v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC,AD3d, 2011 NY Slip Op 02840 [2d Dept 2011]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 80 AD3d 695, 696; Farrah v Pinos, 78 AD3d 1115; Francis v Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 45 AD3d 529, 530). Other factors which the court should consider include whether the default prejudiced the opposing party, whether it was willful or evinced an intent to abandon the litigation, and whether vacating the default would serve the strong public policy of resolving cases on their merits when possible (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Dick, 67 AD3d 900, 902; Klughaupt v Hi-Tower Contrs., Inc., 64 AD3d 545, 546; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 58 AD3d 832, 832-833; Moore v Day, 55 AD3d 803, 804).

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to vacate its default. The defendant established a reasonable excuse for the default, and the affidavit of its expert demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense. Furthermore, the record does not indicate that the plaintiffs were prejudiced by the default or that the default was willful or part of a pattern of neglect, and the vacatur of the default advances the public policy of resolving actions on their merits (see e.g. Dorio v County of Suffolk, 58 AD3d 594, 595; Li Gang Ma v Hong Guang Hu, 54 AD3d 312, 313; Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 672, 673; Cooney v Cambridge Mgt. & Realty Corp., 35 AD3d 522, 523).

Assael v 15 Broad St., LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 03984 (App. DIv., 2nd 2011)

Upon the plaintiff's appeal, in a decision and order dated March 16, 2010, this Court determined that the defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment should have been denied (see Assael v 15 Broad St., LLC, 71 AD3d 802). Following that appeal, the plaintiff sought to collect the proceeds of the subject bond. The defendant moved, inter alia, to discharge the subject bond, arguing that it had been issued as a condition of vacating the default judgment. The Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to discharge the subject bond. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.

"A court which renders a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just'(CPLR 5015[a]), including the imposition of a bond or undertaking" (Doris v Lewis, 76 AD3d 536, 537; see Yadid, LLC v GCW Bell Corp., 48 AD3d 799, 800; Testwell Craig Labs. v Charles Assoc., 264 AD2d 836, 837). Here, the Supreme Court directed the defendant to post a bond "as a condition of vacatur" of the default judgment. However, upon this Court's decision and order dated March 16, 2010, determining that the defendant's motion to vacate the aforementioned default judgment should have been denied, the parties were, in effect, returned to the status quo ante, namely, that prior to the defendant's motion to vacate its default. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to discharge the subject bond.

Ogunmoyin v 1515 Broadway Fee Owner, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 05469 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

While law office failure can be accepted as a reasonable excuse in the exercise of a court's sound discretion, the movant must submit supporting facts to explain and justify the default, and mere neglect is not accepted as a reasonable excuse (see Morrison v Rosenberg, 278 AD2d 392, 392; Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447, 447; De Vito v Marine Midland Bank, 100 AD2d 530, 531).

Here, the plaintiff's proffered excuse of law office failure was vague and unsubstantiated and, thus, did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the default (see Knowles v Schaeffer, 70 AD3d 897, 898; Chechen v Spencer, 68 AD3d 801, 802; Murray v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 52 AD3d 792, 793; St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. v Blue Ridge Ins. Co., 21 AD3d 946, 947). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate so much of the order dated November 13, 2009, as was entered upon her default in opposing the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Star Indus., Inc. v Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 AD3d 903, 904; Antoine v Bee, 26 AD3d 306; Matter of Hye-Young Chon v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 849).

Tribeca Lending Corp. v Bartlett, 2011 NY Slip Op 03896 (App. DIv., 1st 2011)

To the extent that defendant's motion to vacate can be construed as based on lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4), the motion fails because defendant formally appeared in this action in June 2007 when he served an answer (see CPLR 320). The fact that an order was entered in January 2008
striking his answer does not vitiate defendant's formal appearance or divest the court of personal jurisdiction over him.

Stasiak v Forlenza, 2011 NY Slip Op 04448 (App. Div., 2nd 2011

The order dated January 12, 2009, granting the wife's unopposed motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the complaint, was rendered at a time when the proceedings were stayed pursuant to both the order dated January 8, 2009, and CPLR 321(c) (see Moray v Koven & Krause, Esqs., 15 NY3d 384, 388-390; Albert v Albert, 309 AD2d 884, 886; Chavoustie v Shaad, 133 AD2d 532). Thus, the Supreme Court erred in issuing the judgment entered March 2, 2009, upon the order dated January 12, 2009. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the husband's motion which was to vacate the judgment entered on March 2, 2009, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) in the interests of substantial justice (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68; Wade v Village of Whitehall, 46 AD3d 1302, 1303; F & C Gen. Contrs. Corp. v Atlantic Mut. Mtge. Corp., 202 AD2d 629, 630; Lane v Lane, 175 AD2d 103, 105).

The Supreme Court also erred in issuing the judgment entered July 8, 2009. At the time of the inquest, the wife had already been granted all of the relief she requested in the complaint, and the husband had no notice that the wife would be seeking an additional award far greater than that sought in the complaint. Moreover, the husband had no representation at the inquest, and did not ask any questions or present any evidence. Based on the wife's testimony that she was owed a particular amount, the Supreme Court awarded her all of the sums that could potentially become due over the 10-year period following the date of the separation agreement. Because the separation agreement did not contain an acceleration clause, the wife was not entitled to these sums at time she made the request (see Long Is. R.R. Co. v Northville Indus. Corp., 41 NY2d 455, 466; McCready v Lindenborn, 172 NY 400, 408; Runfola v Cavagnaro, 78 AD3d 1035; Zarembka v Zarembka, 81 AD2d 742; Gutman v Gutman, 51 AD2d 535, 536). Further, the amount awarded in the judgment entered July 8, 2009, was based on the assumption that the husband would be required to pay the maximum $1,000 per month for the wife's health insurance premiums and $350 per month for the wife's cell phone expenses, while the evidence the wife submitted in support of her earlier motion, in effect, for summary judgment on the complaint showed that her actual monthly health insurance and cell phone expenses were usually substantially less than these amounts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the husband's motion which was to vacate the judgment entered July 8, 2009, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) in the interests of substantial justice (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d at 68; Wade v Village of Whitehall, 46 AD3d at 1303; F & C Gen. Contrs. Corp. v Atlantic Mut. Mtge. Corp., 202 AD2d at 630; Lane v Lane, 175 AD2d at 105).

Rampersant v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 02530 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The defendant moved pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21(e), inter alia, to vacate the note of issue, contending that the plaintiff failed to comply with, among other things, certain demands for bank and credit card statements and authorizations for cellular phone records for the years 2005 and 2006. By order dated March 6, 2009, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion, inter alia, to vacate the note of issue only to the extent of directing the plaintiff to provide authorizations for the disclosure of his Wachovia Bank statements, credit card statements, and cellular phone records for the time period between January 1, 2006, and August 2006. The defendant subsequently moved, inter alia, to modify the order dated March 6, 2009, to extend the time period of disclosure to include August 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. In support thereof, the defendant submitted the plaintiff's application for automobile insurance dated August 7, 2005, to demonstrate that the requested discovery was material and necessary to the defense of this action. The court denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to modify the prior order.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to vacate the note of issue, since it directed discovery to be completed by a date certain (see Joseph v Propst, 306 AD2d 246; Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v Assessor of Town of Brookhaven, 122 AD2d 794, 795).

However, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to modify the order dated March 6, 2009, to extend the time period of disclosure to include August 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, should have been granted (see CPLR 5015[a][4]). By submitting the plaintiff's application for insurance dated August 7, 2005, the defendant demonstrated that the disclosure sought for the time period between August 1, 2005, and December 31, 2005, was material and necessary to the defense of this action (see CPLR 3101[a]; Insurance Law § 3105[a]; Cain v United Ins. Co., 232 SC 397, 401, 102 SE2d 360; Barkan v New York Schools Ins. Reciprocal, 65 AD3d 1061, 1064; Tannenbaum v Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Phila., 53 AD2d 86 affd 41 NY2d 1087).