Category: CPLR

Litigation hold

China Dev. Indus. Bank v Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02987 [1st Dept. 2020]

Plaintiff did not impose a litigation hold until July 2010. However, the record does not support the court’s conclusion that plaintiff was obligated to preserve documents relevant to the transaction between the parties as early as October 2007. The evidence does not show that plaintiff “reasonably anticipated” litigating against defendants at that time, but shows rather that a credible probability of litigation against defendants arose only significantly later (see VOOM HD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., 93 AD3d 33, 43 [1st Dept 2012]). Nor does the record support either the finding that plaintiff selectively preserved certain beneficial documents and recordings related to the transaction for purposes of supporting its legal claims against defendants or the finding that plaintiff refused to produce key witnesses or prevented defendants from deposing them.

Since plaintiff had no duty to preserve evidence in 2007 and reasonably implemented a litigation hold in 2010 upon notice (see The Sedona Conference, Commentary on Legal Holds, Second Ed.: The Trigger & The Process, 20 Sedona Conf J 341 [2019]; VOOM HD at 43), there is no issue regarding the destruction of records neither intentionally, willfully nor negligently. Accordingly, a spoliation sanction is not triggered and a culpable state of mind analysis is not reached.

CPLR 7502

Men Women N.Y. Model Mgt., Inc. v Elite Model Mgt. – N.Y. LLC,  2020 NY Slip Op 02984 [1st Dept. 2020]

CPLR 7502(c) authorizes courts to award provisional relief “in connection with an arbitration that is … to be commenced” where “the award to which the applicant may be entitled may be rendered ineffectual without such … relief.” However, the applicant is required to commence arbitration within 30 days of receiving the provisional relief, or else “the order granting such relief shall expire and be null and void and costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, awarded to the respondent” (id.).

CPLR 7502(c) applies to the instant dispute because the subject provisional relief was entered in aid of arbitration. There is no independent cause of action for injunctive relief (see Talking Capital LLC v Omanoff, 169 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2019]), and it is undisputed that plaintiffs’ underlying breach of contract claim is subject to mandatory arbitration.

Although defendants’ employment agreements also provide for provisional injunctive relief, the purpose of these provisions was not to create an independent right to such relief regardless of whether plaintiffs’ underlying claims were ever actually arbitrated. Rather, the purpose of the injunctive relief clause here was to streamline the process of obtaining provisional relief in aid of arbitration by effectively conceding that the non-solicitation provisions were “reasonable and necessary” and that breach would result in “irreparable injury.”

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate good cause to extend the time in which to commence arbitrations. Even if substitution of counsel would constitute good cause under other circumstances, it does not constitute good cause here, where the substitution came after the subject deadline had already expired and defendants had already moved to vacate. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record, such as a sworn statement from prior counsel, to support plaintiffs’ assertion that counsel believed that CPLR 7502(c) was not applicable. Nor is it clear that such a belief would have been reasonable.

The bold is mine.

Assorted waivers

Clark v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 02456 [2d Dept. 2020]

As a threshold matter, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in finding that the plaintiff had waived her contention that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was untimely made (see Rozz v Law Offs. of Saul Kobrick, P.C., 134 AD3d 920, 921-922; Spagnoletti v Chalfin, 131 AD3d 901, 901-902; Glass v Captain Hulbert House, 103 AD3d 607, 608). Accordingly, we agree with the court’s denial of that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against Deutsche Bank.

Hui-Lin Wu v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 02721 [1st Dept. 2020]

The trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ pleadings or preclude defendants from calling witnesses on the ground of their alleged failure to provide discovery, since, by filing a note of issue, plaintiff waived her entitlement to any further discovery (see 22 NYCRR 202.21; Escourse v City of New York, 27 AD3d 319 [1st Dept 2006]; Abbott v Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 295 AD2d 136 [1st Dept 2002]). The court properly rejected plaintiff’s attempt to authenticate her medical records through the testimony of someone who merely became the records’ physical custodian after the sale of the surgical center at which they were created (see Irizarry v Lindor, 110 AD3d 846 [2d Dept 2013]). The court correctly declined to admit the officers’ disciplinary files, since plaintiff had never requested the requisite in camera review (see Civil Rights Law § 50-a[2], [3]; see also People v Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543, 551 [1979]; Telesford v Patterson, 27 AD3d 328 [1st Dept 2006]). Nor could plaintiff show that the records were relevant, particularly since the City admitted that the officers were acting in the scope of their employment during the incident (see Cheng Feng Fong v New York City Tr. Auth., 83 AD3d 642 [2d Dept 2011]; Weinberg v Guttman Breast & Diagnostic Inst., 254 AD2d 213 [1st Dept 1998]). There is no indication in the record that plaintiff [*2]requested and was denied interested witness charges. The court properly determined that any explanation as to missing witnesses was better addressed by counsel in their summations than by a jury charge.

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Chishty, 2020 NYSlipOp 00641 [2d Dept. 2020]

The defendant also waived her right to seek dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against her pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) by filing two notices of appearance (see Bank of Am., N.A. v Rice, 155 AD3d 593 [2017]; Myers v Slutsky, 139 AD2d 709, 710 [1988])

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Abrahim, 2020 NY Slip Op 02764 [2d Dept. 2020]

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, she waived the right to seek a dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) by appearing in the action and, inter alia, engaging in motion practice as early as 2012 (see HSBC Bank USA v Lugo, 127 AD3d 502, 503; Myers v Slutsky, 139 AD2d 709, 710-711).

And, not a waiver

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Martinez, 2020 NYSlipOp 01693 [1st Dept 2020]

Plaintiff’s argument that defendant waived his right to seek dismissal pursuant to section 3215 (c) because he participated in the settlement conferences is equally unavailing. Although a party may waive it rights under CPLR 3215 (c) “by serving an answer or taking any other steps which may be viewed as a formal or informal appearance” (Private Capital Group, LLC v Hosseinipour, 170 AD3d 909, 910 [2d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]), defendant’s participation in settlement conferences did not constitute either a formal or an informal appearance “since [he] did not actively litigate the action before the Supreme Court or participate in the action on the merits” (Slone, 174 AD3d at 867).

The above bold is mine.

4518 and hearsay. You have to attach the records.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Sesey, 2020 NY Slip Op 02822 [App Div 2d 2020]

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff submitted, inter alia, an attorney affirmation to which documents were appended purporting to be the note and an allonge. The plaintiff also submitted the affidavit of Nancy Chouanard, a vice president employed by the plaintiff. The attorney affirmation was insufficient to authenticate the documents purporting to be the note and an allonge. The Chouanard affidavit also failed to authenticate such documents. Furthermore, while Chouanard claimed that the plaintiff’s business records showed that the plaintiff received the original note endorsed to it as trustee on November 10, 2005, which would have been prior to the commencement of the Option One foreclosure action, Chouanard failed to identify what documents she relied upon to support that conclusory assertion, much less submit any properly authenticated business records. Even assuming that Chouanard’s affidavit was sufficient to establish a proper foundation for the admission of business records pursuant to CPLR 4518(a), the plaintiff failed to submit copies of the business records themselves. “[T]he business record exception to the hearsay rule applies to a writing or record’ (CPLR 4518[a]) . . . [and] it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” (Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gordon, 171 AD3d 197, 205 [citation omitted]). “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Ozcan, 154 AD3d 822, 826-827), a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” (U.S. Bank N.A. v 22 S. Madison, LLC, 170 AD3d 772, 774). Thus, Chouanard’s assertions as to the contents of the records were inadmissible hearsay as the documents themselves were not submitted (see id. at 774; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Grennan, 175 AD3d 1513, 1516). A review of records maintained in the normal course of business does not vest an affiant with personal knowledge (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Grennan, 175 AD3d at 1517).

Bold is mine.

Similar holdings in HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Dubose, 175 AD3d 1270 [2d Dept. 2019], Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gordon, 171 AD3d 197 [2d Dept. 2019], Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Tamargo, 177 AD3d 750 [2d Dept. 2019], Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Springer, 2020 NYSlipOp 00176 [2d Dept. 2020], Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Cavallaro, 181 AD3d 688 [2d Dept. 2020], Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Dennis, 2020 NYSlipOp 02039 [2d Dept. 2020]

O.K. v Y.M. & Y.W.H.A. of Williamsburg, Inc., 175 AD3d 540 [2d Dept. 2020]

Here, the defendants failed to submit their certificate of incorporation. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the computer printout they submitted in support of their motion from the website of the New York State Department of State, Division of Corporations was inadmissible, since it was not certified or authenticated, and it was not supported by a factual foundation sufficient to demonstrate its admissibility as a business record (see Werner v City of New York, 135 AD3d 740, 741 [2016]; Dyer v 930 Flushing, LLC, 118 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2014]).

 

50-h from the Court of Appeals

Colon v Martin, 2020 NY Slip Op 02681 [2020]

General Municipal Law § 50-h requires a claimant to comply with a municipality’s demand for a pre-action oral examination before commencing suit against the municipality. The novel statutory interpretation issue on this appeal is whether a claimant has the right to observe a coclaimant’s section 50-h oral examination over the municipality’s objection. We hold that section 50-h provides no such right.

Potentially meritorious defense [CPLR 5015]

Lai v Montes, 2020 NY Slip Op 02134 [3d Dept. 2020]

Moreover, defendants have proffered several defenses that are potentially meritorious based upon their verified answer and affidavits in support of the motion to vacate the default judgment (see Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Shahid Mian, M.D., P.C., 172 AD3d 1332, 1333 [2019]; Luderowski v Sexton, 152 AD3d 918, 918 [2017]). “To establish the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, defendants needed only to make a prima facie showing of legal merit, as the quantum of proof needed to prevail on a CPLR 5015 (a) (1) motion is less than that required when opposing a summary judgment motion” (Luderowski v Sexton, 152 AD3d at 920 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Defendants’ affidavits of merit indicate that plaintiffs breached the contract by misrepresenting that the dog was an “AKC [registerable] purebred English bulldog . . . that would be suitable for breeding or showing” when it is not suitable for same due to certain genetic defects. As a result, defendants claim that they were not unjustly enriched, as alleged in the complaint. Defendants also assert that the allegedly defamatory statements are true, an “absolute defense” provided they are “substantially true” (Hope v Hadley-Luzerne Pub. Lib., 169 AD3d 1276, 1277 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Cusimano v United Health Servs. Hosps., Inc., 91 AD3d 1149, 1151 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 801 [2012]). Further, defendants served an answer with numerous affirmative defenses and participated in depositions,[FN3] “indicat[ing] that they had no intention of abandoning their defense[s]” (Luderowski v Sexton, 152 AD3d at 920-921).

While these defenses may ultimately prove to be unsuccessful, we find that they are potentially meritorious so as to satisfy CPLR 5015 (a) (1), in that they “suffice to make the requisite prima facie showing of merit” (Luderowski v Sexton, 152 AD3d at 921; see Matter of Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v Kobi Auto Collision & Paint Ctr., Inc., 166 AD3d at 1366; Passeri v Tomlins, 141 AD3d 816, 818-819 [2016]). “Under these circumstances, and considering the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases upon their merits” (Matter of Walker v Buttermann, 164 AD3d 1081, 1082-1083 [2018] [citations omitted]), we find that defendants’ motion to vacate the default judgment should have been granted. Accordingly, the final order issued following the inquest must be reversed and defendants’ remaining contentions addressed to the inquest have been rendered academic.

Bold is mine.

Alternate service

Fontanez v PV Holding Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 02173 [1st Dept. 2020]

The motion court properly determined that service upon Mr. Yu pursuant to CPLR 308(1), (2), or (4) was impracticable. Plaintiff served the summons and complaint on the Secretary of State of New York and mailed notice of this service with a copy of the pleadings to defendant Yu by registered mail to his last known address. She also hired a process server, who attempted to obtain Mr. Yu’s address through the Department of Motor Vehicles and through people search databases, including “Premium People Search” and “IRB Search.” Further, the motion court properly concluded that plaintiff’s attempts to serve through the Chinese Central Authority in accordance with the Hague convention would have been futile because she did not have defendant’s correct address (see Born To Build, LLC v Saleh, 139 AD3d 654, 656 [2d Dept 2016]). Plaintiff was not required to show due diligence to meet the impracticability threshold under CPLR 308(5) (see Franklin v Winard, 189 AD2d 717 [1st Dept 1993]).

The motion court properly directed that alternate service be made on defendant PV Holding as real party in interest, even if neither the attorney nor the insurer had knowledge of defendant’s Yu’s whereabouts (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 116 AD3d 571 [1st Dept 2014], lv dismissed 23 NY3d 1030 [2014]; Cives Steel Co. v Unit Bldrs., 262 AD2d 164 [1st Dept 1999]).

Bold is mine.

3103 proper to respond to pre-action discovery [3102(c)]

Matter of Delgrange v RealReal, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02170 [1st Dept. 2020]

As a threshold matter, TRR’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) is a proper vehicle for challenging the petition brought pursuant to CPLR 3102(c) (see e.g. Liberty Imports v Bourguet, 146 AD2d 535, 537 [1st Dept 1989]). CPLR 3102(c) merely provides a device for obtaining pre-action discovery, and CPLR 3103(a) is a means for obtaining “at any time” an order “denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device.” The fact that TRR has produced information relating to 20 of the items at issue does not moot its appeal (see Matter of Camara v Skanska, Inc., 150 AD3d 548 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 109 AD3d 7, 12 n 2 [1st Dept 2013], lv dismissed 22 NY3d 1016 [2013]).

In support of her application for pre-action discovery pursuant to CPLR 3102(c), petitioner demonstrated a meritorious cause of action for conversion (see Bishop v Stevenson Commons Assoc., L.P., 74 AD3d 640 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 702 [2011]; Vigilant Ins. Co. of Am. v Housing Auth. of City of El Paso, Tex., 87 NY2d 36, 44 [1995] [elements of conversion claim]). In an affidavit, she averred that she had a collection of thousands of articles of fashion items made by respondent Marc Jacobs International, LLC (Marc Jacobs), many of which were rare or unique; that she routinely monitored TRR’s website for other Marc Jacobs items; and that she noticed, beginning in late 2017, that items similar to hers were being posted online. Growing suspicious, she inventoried her collection and discovered that many pieces were missing that seemed to be the same as items posted on TRR’s website. Petitioner reviewed thousands of Marc Jacobs items that had been listed for sale on TRR’s website, and identified 153 items that she believed had been stolen from her collection. She then purchased several of the items, including one that had an identifying tear in it, and ascertained that they had been hers.

Petitioner also demonstrated that the discovery she seeks from TRR — the identity of the people who posted — is material and necessary to the prosecution of her posited cause of action (see Bishop, 74 AD3d at 641; see e.g. Matter of Alexander v Spanierman Gallery, LLC, 33 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2006]; Matter of Banco de Concepcion v Manfra, Tordella & Brooke, 70 AD2d 840, 841 [1st Dept 1979], appeal dismissed 48 NY2d 655 [1979]; Matter of Cohen v Google, Inc., 25 Misc 3d 945 [Sup Ct, NY County 2009]).

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in shaping and executing the confidentiality order governing disclosure by TRR. The court addressed TRR’s concerns about petitioner’s contacting its customers by modifying the form to require petitioner to give TRR 24 hours’ written notice prior to any use of information disclosed under the order. The court also providently exercised its discretion in declining to restrict petitioner’s use of information disclosed under the order to conversion claims. Although petitioner does not currently posit any theory other than conversion as a basis for pre-action discovery, she is not foreclosed from developing, at some point, new viable theories for recovery, such as replevin (see e.g. Alexander, 33 AD3d at 412). There is no basis for making it impossible for her to seek recovery under any legitimate theory that may arise.

Bold is mine.

3126 and conditional orders

Mehler v Jones, 2020 NY Slip Op 02103 [1st Dept. 2020]

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in issuing a conditional order of dismissal, in light of plaintiff’s history of noncompliance with court orders requiring her to appear for a further deposition (see CPLR 3126[3]; Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 AD3d 219, 220 [1st Dept 2010]).

Plaintiff contends that her behavior was neither willful nor contumacious. However, by issuing a conditional order, the court “relieve[d] [itself] of the unrewarding inquiry into whether [plaintiff’s] resistance was willful” (Board of Mgrs. of the 129 Lafayette St. Condominium v 129 Lafayette St., LLC, 103 AD3d 511, 511 [1st Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

On her motion to renew, plaintiff failed to submit new facts (CPLR 2221[e][2]), i.e., facts that existed but were unknown to her at the time defendants made their motions (see Matter of Naomi S. v Steven E., 147 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2017]). Instead, she submitted facts that developed after the conditional order that decided the prior motions was issued.

Plaintiff’s proper recourse was to seek to vacate the order on the ground of excusable default, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) (see Hutchinson Burger, Inc. v Bradshaw, 149 AD3d 545, 545 [1st Dept 2017]; Country Wide Home Loans, Inc. v Dunia, 138 AD3d 533 [1st Dept 2016]). Even if we treat the motion as a motion to vacate (see CPLR 2001), we must deny it. Although plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her failure to comply with the conditional order, she failed to demonstrate a meritorious medical malpractice claim (see Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74, 80 [2010]).

4401 Judgment as a matter of law

Boriello v Loconte, 2020 NY Slip Op 02035 [2d Dept. 2020]

” A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 may be granted where the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the [trier of fact] could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party'” (PAS Tech. Servs. v Middle Vil. Healthcare Mgt., LLC, 92 AD3d 742, 744, quoting C.K. Rehner, Inc. v Arnell Constr. Corp., 303 AD2d 439, 440). “In considering such a motion, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in light most favorable to the nonmovant'” (PAS Tech. Servs., Inc. v Middle Vil. Healthcare Mgt., LLC, 92 AD3d at 744, quoting Robinson v 211-11N., LLC, 46 AD3d 657, 658).

Here, the Supreme Court, in announcing its decision, stated that it expressly considered and relied on the defendants’ evidence. This was error, as it was improper for the court to consider, on a motion for a directed verdict made before the moving party had rested and the opposing party had an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, the evidence introduced by the moving party (see Levine v Charlow, 254 App Div 416, 418; Dillon v Cortland Baking Co., 224 App Div 303, 305).

Thus, in the context of a motion for a directed verdict, the Supreme Court should not have accorded the defendants’ expert’s testimony more weight than that of the plaintiff’s expert. In determining a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court “must not engage in a weighing of the evidence, nor may it direct a verdict where the facts are in dispute, or where different inferences may be drawn or the credibility of witnesses is in question” (Hernandez v Pappco Holding Co., Ltd., 136 AD3d 981, 983 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of David WW. v Laureen QQ., 42 AD3d 685, 686). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict denied, the amended complaint reinstated, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial.