Appellate Division

CPLR R. 5015: Can’t require a bond to vacate a judgment that doesn’t exist

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or order

Doris v Lewis, 2010 NY Slip Op 06357 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The Supreme Court erred in requiring the defendant to post a bond. 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 (see Yadid, LLC v GCW Bell Corp., 48 [*2]AD3d 799, 800; Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v County of Nassau, 296 AD2d 474, 475; Testwell Craig Labs. v Charles Assoc., 264 AD2d 836; Harp v Tednick Corp., 256 AD2d 904, 905; F & K Supply v Balbec Corp., 182 AD2d 911). However, in the instant case, the Supreme Court did not issue an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter judgment upon the defendant's default and did not render a default judgment. Thus, there was no judgment or order from which the defendant was seeking to be relieved.

It's pretty rare that you find a decision where the court requires a bond as a condition of vacatur. Even with the facts as they are in this case, it's still an interesting decision.

Reconcile This: Hearsay

LaVecchia v Bilello, 2010 NY Slip Op 06363 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The requisite elements of proof in a dental malpractice action are a deviation or departure from accepted standards of dental practice, and evidence that such departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury (see Koi Hou Chan v Yeung, 66 AD3d 642; Terranova v Finklea, 45 AD3d 572; Clarke v Limone, 40 AD3d 571). Therefore, on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant dentist has the initial burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted practice, or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby (see Koi Hou Chan v Yeung, 66 AD3d at 642; Terranova v Finklea, 45 AD3d at 572; Williams v Sahay, 12 AD3d 366, 368). "To sustain this burden, the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiff's bill of particulars" (Koi Hou Chan v Yeung, 66 AD3d at 643; see Ward v Engel, 33 AD3d 790, 791; Johnson v Ladin, 18 AD3d 439).

Here, as the Supreme Court correctly determined, the defendant Raphaelson Dental Associates (hereinafter RDA) failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. RDA's dental expert relied upon, inter alia, an unsworn dental report by Dr. Jenal and dental records that were not annexed to the motion (see Farmer v City of New York, 25 AD3d 649, 650). Moreover, the affidavit of RDA's dental expert was conclusory, and failed to rebut all of the specific allegations of dental malpractice set forth in the plaintiff's verified bill of particulars (see Terranova v Finklea, 45 AD3d at 572; Ward v Engel, 33 AD3d at 791). The expert affirmation submitted by the defendant Rita Marie Bilello likewise was insufficient to establish RDA's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied [*2]RDA's motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853; Koi Hou Chan v Yeung, 66 AD3d at 644).

Compare this with Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140(A) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)

Moreover, we note that, while defendant's peer review doctor may have considered medical records received from other providers who had rendered treatment to the assignor, defendant was not seeking to use such records to establish the truth of the facts set forth therein. Defendant was not attempting to prove that Rafailova was injured as documented in her medical records, or that she was treated as set forth in those records. Instead, defendant's peer review doctor simply opined that, assuming the facts set forth in Rafailova's records were true, the treatment allegedly provided was not medically necessary. Therefore, as defendant was not using the underlying medical records for their truth, such records were not being used for a hearsay purpose (see e.g. Dawson v Raimon Realty Corp., 303 AD2d 708 [2003]; Splawn v Lextaj Corp., 197 AD2d 479 [1993]). This is distinguishable from a situation in which a medical expert relies upon medical records to establish the fact of an injury (see e.g. Hambsch v New York City Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723 [1984]; Wagman v Bradshaw, 292 AD2d 84 [2002]). Consequently, plaintiff's argument that defendant failed to establish the reliability of the underlying medical records in support of its claim that the treatment provided was not medically necessary is irrelevant.

Can these two decisions be reconciled? For those of you that don't practice in the Civil Court, this might not mean anything to you. But you never know if and when this issue will creep into Supreme Court. For more background on the issue, read THIS, THIS, and THIS.¹

Also of interest is the fact that the Urban decision is an unreported decision, which could be the Appellate Term's way of saying, "hey, this is only for no fault."

Finally, I'm by the time you all got to this point in the post you were wondering whether you have been using "i.e." or "e.g." appropriately. Here you go:

———————————-

1. The last one is a NYLJ article and you need to pay to play, however, if the authors woudl post the article on their website, I could put a link to it and make everyone look smart.

Defaults and legal (as opposed to factual) conclusions to be drawn by the Court.

CPLR � 3215 Default Judgment
(a) Default and Entry
(b) Procedure before court

McGee v Dunn, 2010 NY Slip Op 06233 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The defendant was personally served with the summons and verified complaint on July 23, 2008, and failed to answer the complaint, appear, or move with respect thereto within the 20-day statutory period (see CPLR 320[a]). In late August 2008 the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon his default in answering and for an inquest on the issue of damages. The defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. We modify.

Although a defaulting defendant is deemed to have admitted all the allegations in the complaint, "the legal conclusions to be drawn from such proof are reserved for the Supreme Court's determination" (Venturella-Ferretti v Ferretti,AD3d, 2010 NY Slip Op 04777, *1 [2d Dept 2010]; see CPLR 3215[b]; Green v Dolphy Constr. Co., 187 AD2d 635, 636). There is no " mandatory ministerial duty'" to enter a default judgment against a defaulting party (Resnick v Lebovitz, 28 AD3d 533, 534, quoting Gagen v Kipany Prods., 289 AD2d 844, 846 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Instead, the court must determine whether the motion was supported with "enough facts to enable [the] court to determine that a viable cause of action exists" (Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 71; see Cardo v Board of Mgrs., Jefferson Vil. Condo 3, 29 AD3d 930, 932; Beaton v Transit Facility Corp., 14 AD3d 637). "In determining whether the plaintiff has a viable cause of action, the court may consider the complaint, affidavits, and affirmations submitted by the plaintiff" (Litvinskiy v May Entertainment Group, Inc., 44 AD3d 627, [*2]627).

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter judgment upon the defendant's default in answering and for an assessment of damages, as the plaintiff's motion papers failed to set forth sufficient facts to enable the court to determine that there exists a viable cause of action to recover damages for either libel (see Rosenberg v MetLife, Inc., 8 NY3d 359, 365; Rufeh v Schwartz, 50 AD3d 1002, 1004) or malicious prosecution (see Baker v City of New York, 44 AD3d 977, 979; Paisley v Coin Device Corp., 5 AD3d 748, 749-750). However, the Supreme Court should not have granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint as it was not made prior to the time by which the defendant was required to serve an answer or notice of appearance (see CPLR 320[a]; 3211[e]). Furthermore, the defendant's motion failed to request an extension of time to answer or appear (see CPLR 2004). In addition, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint failed to set forth a reasonable excuse for the default, which, along with a showing of a potentially meritorious defense, is generally necessary to avoid the entry of a default judgment (see DeStaso v Bottiglieri, 52 AD3d 453, 454; Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353, 355-356).

Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's untimely motion to dismiss the complaint, as it, in effect, excused the defendant's default in the absence of a request for such relief (see May v Hartsdale Manor Owners Corp., 73 AD3d 713; Zino v Joab Taxi, Inc., 20 AD3d 521, 522; see also Tirado v Miller,AD3d, 2010 NY Slip Op 04364 [2d Dept 2010]).

Compare Balance Chiropractic, P.C. v Property & Cas. Ins. Co. of Hartford, 27 Misc 3d 138(A) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010). Read more about it at JT.

Something that everyone knows, but is constantly ignored

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

Associates First Capital Corp. v Wiggins, 2010 NY Slip Op 06225 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, inter alia, that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. "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, since the defendants' affidavits amounted to no more than bare and conclusory denials of service which were insufficient to rebut the prima facie proof of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) and (2) created by the process server's affidavit, no hearing was required (see City of New York v Miller, 72 AD3d 726; Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d at 716; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Schotter, 50 AD3d 983, 983; 425 E. 26th St. Owners Corp. v Beaton, 50 AD3d 845, 846; Simonds v Grobman, 277 AD2d 369, 370).

By "defendant's sworn denial of receipt" the Court does not mean that just anyone can deny receipt. The person who was served has to do it or a person with sufficient knowledge. "I checked the file" is not sufficient. But, like anything else, there are exceptions.

For some crazy reason, typepad decided to get rid of the justify button. Posts will take longer because of this.

CPLR R. 327 and the borrowing statute (CPLR § 202 )

Patriot Exploration, LLC v Thompson & Knight LLP, 2010 NY Slip Op 06217 (App. Div., 1st, 2010)

In this legal malpractice action, the motion court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss this action on forum non conveniens grounds (see Shin-Etsu Chem. Co., Ltd. v ICICI Bank Ltd., 9 AD3d 171, 175-77 [2004]). Since the court may grant a forum non conveniens motion "on any conditions that may be just" (CPLR 327[a]), which includes the power to impose "reasonable conditions designed to protect plaintiffs' interests" (Chawafaty v Chase Manhattan Bank, 288 AD2d 58, 58 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 607 [2002]), the court could properly condition an inconvenient-forum dismissal on a waiver of the foreign forum's
two-year statute of limitation (see e.g. Healy v Renaissance Hotel Operating Co., 282 AD2d 363, 364 [2001]; Seung-Min Oh v Gelco Corp., 257 AD2d 385, 387 [1999]; Highgate Pictures v De Paul, 153 AD2d 126, 129 [1990]).

Nor can defendant prevail on its belated offer, made in its motion for reargument, to waive its potential statute of limitations defense, since the court had also properly found that defendant had not met its burden of establishing that New York was an inconvenient forum and that the matter should be tried in Texas based upon a consideration of factors including potential hardship to proposed witnesses, the location of records and files, the residency of the parties, and the burden imposed upon the New York courts (see Gulf Oil Corp. v Gilbert, 330 US 501, 508 [1947]; Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479 [1984], cert denied, 469 US 1108 [1985]).

Read the dissent. You don't see it here? Click the link, stupid.

One day late CPLR § 3012; § 2005

CPLR § 3012 Service of pleadings and demand for complaint
(d) Extension of time to appear or plead

CPLR § 2005 Excusable delay or default

Dinstber v Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 06200 (App. Div., 3rd 2010)

Plaintiff served a summons and verified complaint on the Insurance
Department on July 29, 2008 pursuant to Insurance Law § 1212. However,
defendant allegedly did not receive them until August 21, 2008. Although
defendant served an answer on August 28, 2008, plaintiff rejected it
because it was not verified. On September 4, 2008 — one day after
receiving plaintiff's letter of rejection — defendant served a second
answer, virtually identical to the first but properly verified, which
was rejected by plaintiff as untimely. Defendant then promptly moved to
extend its time to answer and to compel plaintiff to accept late service
thereof. Plaintiff cross-moved for a default judgment. Supreme Court
granted defendant's motion — giving defendant 30 days to file, serve and
file proof of service of the second answer — and denied plaintiff's
cross motion. Plaintiff now appeals and we affirm.
[*2]

Pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d),
Supreme Court has the discretion to permit late service of an answer
upon the demonstration of a reasonable excuse for the delay or default (see Rickert v Chestara, 56 AD3d 941, 942 [2008]; Watson v Pollacchi, 32 AD3d 565,
565 [2006]). "To that end, '[w]hether there is a reasonable excuse for a
default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the
court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay,
whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there
has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving
cases on the merits'" (Rickert v Chestara, 56 AD3d at 942, quoting Harcztark v Drive Variety, Inc., 21 AD3d 876, 876-877 [2005]; see Watson v Pollacchi, 32 AD3d at 565). Also relevant is whether the untimely answer sets forth a meritorious defense to plaintiff's complaint (see Rickert v Chestara, 56 AD3d at 942; Watson v Pollacchi, 32 AD3d at 565).

Here, contrary to plaintiff's assertion, we find that defendant
proffered both a reasonable excuse for its delay in serving a verified
answer and a sufficiently meritorious defense to the claims. Defendant
proffered several reasons for its delay. First, defendant submitted
evidence that it did not actually receive the complaint from the
Insurance Department until one week before the time to answer expired
and that an incorrect date of service on the transmittal sheet caused
further delay in the complaint being referred to counsel. After
unsuccessfully attempting to contact plaintiff to obtain an extension of
time to serve an answer, defendant effected such service one day after
counsel's receipt of the complaint. Secondly, defendant alleged law
office failure in neglecting to include the verification with the
initial answer, which was timely served. In our view, these
circumstances established a reasonable excuse for the default (see CPLR 2005).

We also note that defendant's answer set forth a myriad of
defenses including, among others, failure to state a cause of action,
failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy, fraud or
perjury on plaintiff's part and that the claim is time-barred. In
addition, defendant's attorney provided Supreme Court with the original
denial of coverage letter, which set forth in detail the reasons why
plaintiff's claim for benefits was denied. Such assertions set forth a
sufficiently meritorious defense for purposes of defendant's motion (see Chase Manhattan Automotive Fin. Corp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 272 AD2d 772, 774-775 [2000]).

In view of defendant's reasonable excuse for the default, the
minimal delay, defendant's expeditious motion to compel acceptance of
the answer, the absence of proof that the default was willful or any
indication that plaintiff was prejudiced by the delay, and the existence
of an arguably meritorious defense, we conclude that Supreme Court's
decision to grant defendant's motion to extend the time to answer and to
compel plaintiff to accept service was a proper exercise of its
discretion (see Rickert v Chestara, 56 AD3d at 942; Acker v VanEpps, 45 AD3d 1104, 1105, 1106 [2007]).

The bold is mine.

Hoisted by one’s own petard

JT posted the case first, but I like my title better.

Abdalla v Mazl Taxi, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 06071 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the defendants failed to
meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not
sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d)
as a result of the subject accident (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79
NY2d 955, 956-957). The defendants, in support of their motion, relied
on some of the plaintiff's own medical reports. One such report was that
of the plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Joyce Goldenberg, which
revealed the existence of a significant limitation in the plaintiff's
right knee flexion (see Guerrero v Bernstein, 57 AD3d 845; Mendola v Demetres, 212
AD2d 515). The other was an operative report of the plaintiff's
treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Richard Seldes, which revealed, inter
alia, the existence of a tear in the posterior horn of the medial
meniscus in the right knee. Since the defendants did not meet their
prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers
submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a
triable issue of fact (see Guerrero v Bernstein, 57 AD3d at 845; Mendola v Demetres, 212 AD2d at 515).

CPLR R. 3025(b) No amendment without factual basis

CPLR R. 3025 Amended and supplemental
pleadings
(b) Amendments and
supplemental pleadings by leave

DeLouise v S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp, 2010 NY Slip Op 05984 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The plaintiff also sought leave to amend the complaint to assert the
additional causes of action of negligent entrustment, negligent hiring,
and negligent retention. Although CPLR 3025(b) provides that leave to
serve an amended pleading should be freely given (see AYW Networks v
Teleport Communications Group, 309 AD2d 724; Charleson v City of
Long Beach, 297 AD2d 777; Holchendler v We Transp., 292 AD2d
568), leave to amend should be denied where the proposed amendment is
palpably insufficient as a matter of law or is totally devoid of merit (see Morton v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 32 AD3d 381;
Thone v Crown Equip. Corp., 27 AD3d 723).
Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in
granting the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint since the
plaintiff's motion papers were completely devoid of any factual basis
for the proposed amendments.

The bold is mine.

CPLR R. 3212 and R. 3116: proof, inadmissible at trial, but sufficient to defeat SJ

CPLR R. 3116 Signing
deposition; physical preparation; copies

(a) Signing.

CPLR R. 3212
Motion for summary judgment

Moffett v Gerardi, 2010 NY Slip Op 05990 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

"A certificate of acknowledgment attached to an instrument such as a
deed raises a presumption of due execution, which presumption, in a case
such as this, can be rebutted only after being weighed against any
evidence adduced to show that the subject instrument was not duly
executed" (Son Fong Lum v Antonelli, 102 AD2d 258, 260-261, affd
64 NY2d 1158; see Beshara [*2]v
Beshara, 51 AD3d 837, 838). Here, the defendant made a prima
facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing
a copy of the notarized January 1998 deed which included a certificate
of acknowledgment (see Beshara v Beshara, 51 AD3d 837; Elder v Elder, 2 AD3d 671).

In opposition, the plaintiff submitted his own affidavit
contesting the signature on the deed, the deposition transcript of the
notary public who purportedly notarized the deed, and an unsworn report
of a handwriting expert. The plaintiff failed to establish that he had
sent the deposition transcript to the notary public for review pursuant
to CPLR 3116(a), thereby rendering the transcript inadmissible at trial (see Marmer v IF USA Express, Inc., 73 AD3d 868;
Martinez v 123-16 Liberty Ave. Realty Corp., 47
AD3d 901, 902; McDonald v Mauss, 38 AD3d 727, 728; Pina v Flik Intl. Corp., 25 AD3d 772; Scotto v Marra, 23 AD3d 543; Santos v Intown Assoc., 17 AD3d 564).
However, this failure did not preclude the Supreme Court from
considering the transcript in opposition to the motion for summary
judgment (see Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d
1065, 1068; Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307; Franklin v 2 Guys From Long Pond, Inc., 50 AD3d
846; Kwi Bong Yi v JNJ Supply Corp., 274 AD2d 453; Silvestri
v Iannone, 261 AD2d 387; Zuilkowski v Sentry Ins., 114 AD2d
453). Generally, when opposing a motion for summary judgment, a party
must submit evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable
issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). In
certain circumstances, "proof which might be inadmissible at trial may,
nevertheless, be considered in opposition to a motion for summary
judgment" (Zuilkowski v Sentry Ins., 114 AD2d 453), as long as
the party seeking to use such evidence provides an acceptable excuse for
the failure to tender the evidence in admissible form (see Friends
of Animals v Associates Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d at 1068; Allstate Ins.
Co. v Keil, 268 AD2d 545), and the inadmissible evidence does not
provide the sole basis for the denial of summary judgment (see
Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307).

Here, the plaintiff's excuse that it was his understanding that the
defendant, as the party who had noticed the deposition and hired the
court reporter, was forwarding a copy of the deposition transcript to
the notary public for review, was reasonable. Moreover, the notary
public's deposition testimony that the deed was not notarized in the
usual manner in which he notarized documents and, as a result, that he
would not testify that the signature on the deed belonged to the
plaintiff, along with the plaintiff's own affidavit that he did not sign
the subject deed, rebutted the presumption of the deed's validity as
created by the certificate of acknowledgment (see Alvarez v Prospect
Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Hoffman v Kraus, 260 AD2d 435).
Accordingly, since there is a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court,
upon reargument, should have adhered to its prior determination denying
the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The bold and underline are mine.

No specific form of oath required in New York: CPLR § 2309

CPLR §
2309 Oaths and affirmations
(b)
Form: An oath or affirmation shall be administered in a form
calculated to awaken the conscience and impress the mind of the person
taking it in accordance with his religious or ethical beliefs.

Furtow v Jenstro Enters., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 05987 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the affidavit submitted
by the defendant Allen Yam Ching was in admissible form and should have
been considered by the court in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment. "There is no specific form of oath required in this
State, other than that it be calculated to awaken the conscience and
impress the mind of the person taking it in accordance with his or her
religious or ethical beliefs" (Feinman v Mennan Oil Co., 248 AD2d
503, 504; see CPLR 2309[b]). "In addition, a notary, in the
absence of a showing to the contrary, is presumed to have acted within
his or her jurisdiction and to have carried out the duties required by
law" (Feinman v Mennan Oil Co., 248 AD2d at 504; see Collins v
AA Truck Renting Corp., 209 AD2d 363). Here, Ching submitted an
affidavit which recited that he was "duly sworn" and contained a jurat
stating that the affidavit was "sworn to before" a notary public, who
signed and stamped the document. On the record presented here, the form
of the affidavit was adequate (see Sirico v F.G.G. Prods., Inc., 71 AD3d 429;
Sparaco v Sparaco, 309 AD2d 1029, 1030; Feinman v Mennan Oil
Co., 248 AD2d at 504; Collins v AA Truck Renting Corp., 209
AD2d at 363).

This is the bare minimum. The bold is mine.