Category: CPLR

CPLR 308

CPLR 3080

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Quinones, 2014 NY Slip Op 00959 [2nd Dept. 2014]

Here, the affidavit of service indicating that the respondent was served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) by delivery of the papers to a person of suitable age and discretion was insufficient on its face to establish, prima facie, that the respondent was validly served pursuant to that section. However, a second affidavit of service constituted prima facie evidence of proper service of the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(1) (see Reich v Redley, 96 AD3d 1038), and of proper service of the notice required by Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1303 (see US Bank N.A. v Tate, 102 AD3d 859). The respondent's bare and unsubstantiated denial of service lacked the factual specificity and detail required to rebut the prima facie proof of proper service set forth in that affidavit of service (see ACT Props., LLC v Garcia, 102 AD3d 712, 713; Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d 716, 716-717).

Empahsis mine.

attorney drafted 3101(d)

CPLR 3101(d)

Bacani v Rosenberg, 2014 NY Slip Op 00737 [1st Dept. 2014]

Upon renewal, the motion court properly dismissed the action as against Rosenberg. As this Court previously found, the opinions of plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Harrigan, failed to raise a triable issue, and plaintiffs' submission of an attorney-drafted CPLR 3101(d) expert disclosure averring that an expert pathologist would testify concerning causation is not evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to defeat the subject motion for summary judgment (see e.g. Velasco v Green-Wood Cemetery, 48 AD3d 271, 272 [1st Dept 2008]). Furthermore, plaintiffs' argument that the claims against Nanda and Rosenberg differ is unavailing because, if Dr. Nanda was not [negligent in failing to order additional testing, Dr. Rosenberg could not be negligent in failing to ask Dr. Nanda to order such testing.

Emphasis mine.

3212(a)

3212(a)

Quinones v Joan & Sanford I. Weill Med. Coll., 2014 NY Slip Op 00882 [1st Dept. 2014]

While acknowledging that an extension would be warranted by an attorney's illness, a death in the family, or a computer breakdown caused by Hurricane Sandy, the court saw no justification for granting an extension in this case. The court's view was that the excuse offered was a perfunctory claim of law office failure, and did not rise to the level of good cause.

In seeking to reverse the appealed order, defendant claims that CPLR 3212(a) requires a showing of good cause for a late summary judgment motion only when the motion is made more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue. When a party fails to comply with a court-imposed deadline of less than 120 days, defendant argues, the operative statutory provision is CPLR 2004, under which "law office failure" may be considered a factor supporting a finding of good cause. Defendant further contends that, even under CPLR 3212(a), it has demonstrated good cause for its failure to move within the court-imposed time limit.

It is uncontroverted that defendant's motion was not timely under the schedule set by the preliminary conference order dated January 5, 2011. As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly reiterated, court-ordered time frames are requirements to be taken seriously by the parties (see Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74, 81 [2010]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). Contrary to the distinction defendant seeks to draw, it does not matter whether a motion for summary judgment has been made more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue or after the expiration of a shorter time limit set by a court order or stipulation. Whatever the source of the deadline with which a party fails to comply, the lateness may not be excused without a showing of good cause within the meaning of CPLR 3212(a) — a showing of something more than mere law office failure (see Polanco v Creston Ave. Props., Inc., 84 AD3d 1337, 1341 [2d Dept 2011]; Powell v Kasper, 84 AD3d 915, 917 [2d Dept 2011]; Deberry-Hall v County of Nassau, 88 AD3d 634, 635 [2d Dept 2011]; Fine v One Bryant Park, LLC, 84 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2011]; Riccardi v CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 60 AD3d 838 [2d Dept 2009]; Giudice v Green 292 Madison, LLC, 50 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2008]; Glasser Abramovitz, 37 AD3d 194 [1st Dept 2007]). Since the excuse proffered by defendant — that its counsel inadvertently overlooked the date set in the January 5, 2011 preliminary conference order — is a perfunctory claim of law office failure, the motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion.

Emphasis mine.

CPLR 3025 mere fact of exposure to greater liability not prejudicial

CPLR 3025

87 Chambers, LLC v 77 Reade, LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 01123 [1st Dept. 2014]

Appellants' motion was timely filed and respondents have not shown that they would be prejudiced by granting appellants' leave to assert the new claims. Among other things, appellants are not prejudiced by the mere fact of exposure to potentially greater liability in the form of punitive damages (see Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23 [1981]; Letterman v Reddington, 278 AD2d 868 [4th Dept 2000]).

Personal Jurisdiction waived

CPLR 3211(e)
CPLR 320

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Ned, 2014 NY Slip Op 01122 [1st Dept. 2014]

In this mortgage foreclosure action, the motion court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Defendant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction since she failed to assert it in her answer and in the two prior motions she made (see CPLR 320; Ohio Sav. Bank v Munsey, 34 AD3d 659 [2d Dept 2006]). Although defendant is correct that the evidence of her physical description rebuts the presumption of proper service since it does not match the description provided by the process server, the court was not required to direct a traverse hearing since defendant waived this defense prior to alerting the court to the discrepancies.

Emphasis mine.

Was this a dare or an oversight

    On December 18, 2013 the Appellate Division, Second Department decided Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 08430 [2nd Dept. 2013].  In short, the Appellate Division held that a no-fault Plaintiff was not required to establish that its bills was a business record under CPLR 4518 to prove its prima facie case.

    On January 24, 2014, in Horton Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50116(U) [App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2014] the Appelalte Term decided an appeal where the plaintiff's motion was unopposed.  The Appellate Term held "Upon a review of the record, we are in agreement with the Civil Court's determination that the affidavit by plaintiffs' billing manager in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment failed to comply with CPLR 4518 (see Dan Med. P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006])"

    Of note, the reasoning in Dan Med was rejected by the Appelalte Division in Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co.

    On February 5, 2014, the Appellate Division decided New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v QBE Ins. Corp., 2014 NY Slip Op 00639 [2nd Dept. 2014]. It held: "A medical provider is not required, as part of its prima facie showing, to demonstrate the admissibility of its billing records or to prove the truth of their content under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]; Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co.,AD3d, 2013 NY Slip Op 08430,  [2d Dept 2013])."

    While the Horton decsion could have been an oversight, it also could have been an attempt to somehow distinguish Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co..  But if that were the case New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v QBE Ins. Corp., 2014 NY Slip Op 00639 [2nd Dept. 2014] put that to bed.  But–and im not saying that this is the case–what if the Appellate Term (or any court for that matter) refused to follow precedent?  What is the remedy?  Recusal?  Disband the Appellate Term–the Appellate Term would not exist but for the Appellate Division's say so.  That, however, is not a remedy for a party.  Should a party request recusal of an entire Appellate Term?  I haven't seen that happen oustide of pro se cases.

 

 

 

CPLR 3126 motion made at court appearance

CPLR 3126

Tung Wa Ma v New York City Tr. Auth., 2014 NY Slip Op 00497 [2nd Dept. 2014]

At a court appearance on October 10, 2012, the plaintiffs made an oral application pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude Lamboy from testifying at trial. The plaintiffs argued that, despite prior requests and orders, the MTA defendants had failed to provide the requested documents. The MTA defendants opposed the application, arguing, inter alia, that they had been unsuccessfully searching for the documents and that, if given the opportunity, they would provide affidavits attesting to the efforts they had made to find them. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' application without giving the MTA defendants an opportunity to show the efforts they had made to find the requested documents.

Before a court may impose the drastic remedy of preclusion for disclosure violations, it must determine that the offending party's lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious (see Aha Sales, Inc. v Creative Bath Prods., Inc., 110 AD3d 1020). Here, the court erred in granting the plaintiffs' application pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude Lamboy from testifying at trial without first affording the MTA defendants an opportunity to demonstrate their attempts to comply with the prior order (see Xand Corp. v Reliable Sys. Alternatives Corp., 35 AD3d 849, 850; cf. Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1137, 1138; Kelleher v Mt. Kisco Med. Group, 264 AD2d 760, 761; Postel v New York Univ. Hosp., 262 AD2d 40, 42).

Bold is mine.

CPLR 3211(e) + alleged lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect

CPLR 3211(e)
CPLR 5015

JP Morgan Mtge. Acquisition Corp. v Hayles, 2014 NY Slip Op 00485 [2nd Dept. 2015]

Hayles contends that the action should be dismissed insofar as asserted against her for lack of standing because the plaintiff was not the holder of the underlying note and mortgage when it commenced the action (see Homecomings Fin., LLC v Guldi, 108 AD3d 506, 507; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279). The Supreme Court properly rejected this claim because Hayles waived it by failing to challenge the plaintiff's standing in her answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hussain, 78 AD3d 989, 990; see also CPLR 3211[e]; CitiMortgage, Inc. v Rosenthal, 88 AD3d 759, 761).

A defendant seeking to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action [*2](see Wells Fargo Bank v Malave, 107 AD3d 880). As Hayles failed to demonstrate any potentially meritorious defense to the foreclosure action or a reasonable excuse for her default in opposing the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hussain, 78 AD3d at 990).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of Hayles' motion which were, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) and (4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale. In this regard, the record contains no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, and an alleged lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Tate, 102 AD3d 859, 860; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hunter, 100 AD3d 810, 811).

Bold is mine.

CPLR 3211(a)(1): Deposition not documentary evidence

CPLR 3211(a)(1)

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Balliraj, 2014 NY Slip Op 00484 [2nd Dept. 2014]

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) "may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" (Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88; Paramount Transp. Sys., Inc. v Lasertone Corp., 76 AD3d 519, 520; Shaya B. Pac., LLC v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 38 AD3d 34, 37-38). The deposition testimony relied upon by the defendants in support of this branch of their cross motion does not constitute "documentary evidence" within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1) (see Fontanetta v John Doe 1, 73 AD3d 78, 86). Further, contrary to the defendants' contention, the other documentary evidence upon which they rely does not conclusively establish that the plaintiff in Action No. 2, Residential Funding Company, LLC, lacks standing.

Bold is mine.