CPLR – Page 44

Voluntary Discontinuance: CPLR R. 3217

CPLR R. 3217 Voluntary discontinuance

New York Downtown Hosp. v Terry,2011 NY Slip Op 00253 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the appellants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3217(b), in effect, to enforce a stipulation pursuant to which the plaintiff agreed to voluntarily discontinue the action insofar as asserted against them is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to convert the cross claims asserted by the defendants Saga House Condominium and Charles Greenthal Management against the appellants to a third-party action, and to amend the caption accordingly.

"In the absence of special circumstances, such as prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant, or other improper consequences, a motion for a voluntary discontinuance should be granted" (Expedite Video Conferencing Servs., Inc. v Botello, 67 AD3d 961, 961; see Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378, 383). Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3217(b), in effect, to enforce a stipulation pursuant to which the plaintiff agreed to voluntarily discontinue the action insofar as asserted against them because there was no showing that the defendants Saga House Condominium and Charles Greenthal Management would be prejudiced by such discontinuance, since their cross claims will continue as a third-party action (see Expedite Video Conferencing Servs., Inc. v Botello, 67 AD3d at 961; Parraguirre v 27th St. Holding, LLC, 37 AD3d 793, 794; Citibank v Nagrotsky, 239 AD2d 456, 457).

CPLR § 3213 and a problem with service

CPLR § 3213 Motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint

Engel v Boymelgreen, 2011 NY Slip Op 00348 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The appeal from the amended 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). The issues raised on the appeal from the amended order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

"Generally, a process server's affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service and, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service" (Washington Mut. Bank v Holt, 71 AD3d 670, 670; see Associates First Capital Corp. v Wiggins, 75 AD3d 614; City of New York v Miller, 72 AD3d 726, 727; Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d 716, 716; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Schotter, 50 AD3d 983, 983). However, a defendant's sworn denial of receipt of service, containing specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavit, "generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by a process server's affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing" (City of New York v Miller, 72 AD3d at 727; see Associates First Capital Corp. v Wiggins, 75 AD3d 614;Washington Mut. Bank v Holt, 71 AD3d 670; Scarano [*2]v Scarano, 63 AD3d 716; Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas, 303 AD2d 343).

Here, the plaintiff's process server swore that he served the summons and motion papers upon the defendant by affixing the papers to the door of a property, which the plaintiff alleged was the defendant's dwelling place or usual place of abode, and then mailing a copy to that same address. The defendant swore that he did not reside at that address and provided an affidavit from the resident of that address which provided, in detail, that she lived at that address with her own family and had advised the plaintiff's process server that the defendant did not reside there. Thus, the defendant established that he was entitled to a hearing on the issue of service, and the Supreme Court erred in making a determination on the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint prior to conducting such a hearing (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pestano, 71 AD3d 1074; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Chaplin, 65 AD3d 588; Zion v Peters, 50 AD3d 894, 894; Kingsland Group v Pose, 296 AD2d 440). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing at which the plaintiff will have to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pestano, 71 AD3d 1074; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Chaplin, 65 AD3d 588; Zion v Peters, 50 AD3d 894).

Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, a letter dated July 8, 2008, allegedly sent to the plaintiff by the defendant—the document upon which the plaintiff moved for summary judgment in lieu of complaint—was a request for a loan and not an instrument for the payment of money only (see Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437, 444; Ro & Ke, Inc. v Stevens, 61 AD3d 953; Comforce Telecom, Inc. v Spears Holding Co., Inc., 42 AD3d 557; Stallone v Rostek, 27 AD3d 449; Gregorio v Gregorio, 234 AD2d 512). The Supreme Court erred in awarding judgment in favor of the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3213, as the letter did not contain an unconditional promise by the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum certain by a set date (see Weissman v Sinorm Deli, 88 NY2d 437). Therefore, in the event that the Supreme Court, Kings County, determines, after a hearing, that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the action is to proceed as a plenary action, with the motion and answering papers deemed to be the complaint and answer, respectively (see Lugli v Johnston, 78 AD3d 1133).

Interesting Jurisdiction Type Stuff

CPLR R. 3211

GS Plasticos Limitada v Bureau Veritas, 2011 NY Slip Op 00272 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

In this action for tortious interference with contractual relations, plaintiff, a Brazilian company authorized to do business in New York, alleges that it lost a contract with a third party due to the issuance by defendant Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services (BVCPS) of reports falsely concluding that plaintiff's products contained excessive amounts of arsenic. BVCPS, an indirect subsidiary of defendant Bureau Veritas (BV), provides testing and inspection services for consumer products, with testing facilities located in Buffalo, New York. BV is a French company that relinquished its authority to do business in New York before the commencement of this action.

As the motion court found, BV's surrender of its authority to do business in New York does not insulate it from the court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over it, because the liability in this case was "incurred by [BV] within this state before the filing of the certificate of surrender" (Business Corporation Law [BCL] § 1310[a][5]; see Antonana v Ore S.S. Corp., 144 F Supp 486, 491 [SD NY 1956]; Munn v Security Controls, 23 AD2d 813 [1965]). Contrary to BV's argument, neither the language of the statute nor the case law limits relief to New York residents (see Carlton Props. v 328 Props., 208 Misc 776, 778-779 [1955]; Antonana, 144 F Supp at 491; Green v Clark, 173 F Supp 233, 236-237 [SD NY 1959]).

However, the court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction pursuant to BCL § 1314(b)(3), based on the tortious conduct's having arisen out of the testing services performed in New York. For purposes of BCL § 1314(b)(3), the inquiry is not where the tortious conduct occurred but [*2]"[w]here the cause of action arose" (see id.; see also Gonzalez v Industrial Bank [of Cuba], 12 NY2d 33 [1962]; Hibernia Natl. Bank v Lacombe, 84 NY 367, 384 [1881]). Plaintiff's claim is one for interference with contractual relations. Although the faulty testing that led to the loss of the contract occurred in New York, plaintiff had no cause of action until the contract was actually lost, i.e., until it was cancelled, and that cancellation occurred in Brazil.

Nor can plaintiff establish jurisdiction pursuant to BCL § 1314(b)(3) or (b)(4), predicating jurisdiction under either of these subdivisions on BVCPS's activities as an agent or mere department of BV. The record does not support a finding that BVCPS's activities are "so complete that [it] is, in fact, merely a department of [BV]," i.e., it was "performing the same activities (i.e., doing all the business') that [BV] would have performed had it been doing or transacting business in New York" (see Porter v LSB Indus., 192 AD2d 205, 213, 214 [1993]).

Defaultastic CPLR 5015

CPLR R. 5015

CPLR R. 3211(e)

CPLR § 321 Attorneys
(c) Death, removal or disability of attorney

Alterbaum v Shubert Org., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 00339 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

To vacate an order entered upon their default in opposing the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment, the defendants were required to demonstrate, inter alia, a reasonable excuse for their default in appearing or answering the complaint and a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Abdul v Hirschfield, 71 AD3d 707; Bekker v Fleischman, 35 AD3d 334; Epps v LaSalle Bus, 271 AD2d 400). The defendants failed to proffer any explanation for their failure to oppose either of the plaintiff's two motions for leave to enter judgment upon their default, one in October 2009, and the second in December 2009, both of which were served upon them (see Epps v LaSalle Bus, 271 AD2d 400). The defendants' claim, which was improperly presented for the first time in a reply affidavit, that their executive assistant did not recall receiving the two motions, did not overcome the presumption of proper mailing created by the affidavits of service (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122; Engel v Lichterman, 62 NY2d 943; Mei Yun Li v Qing He Xu, 38 AD3d 731; Terlizzese v Robinson's Custom Serv., Inc., 25 AD3d 547, 548). Furthermore, the defendants did not offer a reasonable explanation for their inaction between December 2009 and May 2010 when they moved to vacate the order dated March 4, 2010. Under the circumstances, the defendants' pattern of willful neglect and default should not have been excused (see Bekker v Fleischman, 35 AD3d 334; Edwards v Feliz, 28 AD3d 512, 513; Gainey v Anorzej, 25 AD3d 650, 651; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 568). In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendants sufficiently [*2]demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Abdul v Hirschfield, 71 AD3d at 709; Segovia v Delcon Constr. Corp., 43 AD3d 1143, 1144; American Shoring, Inc. v D.C.A. Constr., Ltd., 15 AD3d 431).

Contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiff's affidavit set forth enough facts to enable the Supreme Court to determine that the plaintiff alleged a viable cause of action (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 71; Neuman v Zurich N. Am., 36 AD3d 601, 602).

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Rudman, 2011 NY Slip Op 00346 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

In this action to foreclose a mortgage, the appellants did not answer the complaint until more than eight weeks after their time to do so expired and, even after their untimely answer was immediately rejected, they took no action to remedy their default until many months later. A defendant who seeks to extend the time to appear or to compel acceptance of an untimely answer must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and show a potentially meritorious defense (see Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d 889). Here, the appellants failed to offer any excuse for their failure to timely answer the complaint (id.; see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Teel, 74 AD3d 1275, 1276). Since the appellants failed to offer a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether they demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v McGown, 77 AD3d at 889).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' cross motion, inter alia, to vacate their default in answering and extend their time to answer, and properly granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale against the appellants.

Stamulis v Mordred Realty Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 00374 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

In order to prevail on a motion to vacate a default judgment, a defendant is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a potentially meritorious defense (see Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d 544, 545; Amato v Fast Repair, Inc., 15 AD3d 429, 430; Costanza v Gold, 12 AD3d 551, 552; Czarnik v Urban, 10 AD3d 627). Here, the confusion surrounding the withdrawal of defense counsel from the case and the plaintiff's apparent failure to comply with CPLR 321(c) provided a sufficient excuse for the defaults. In addition, the appellants established the existence of potentially meritorious defenses based on a close reading of the subject lease. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the appellants' cross motion.

Matter of Brodsky v New York City Campaign Fin. Bd., 2011 NY Slip Op 00256 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered December 16, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted respondent's motion to compel petitioner Meryl Brodsky to completely and accurately respond to an information subpoena and questionnaire (CPLR 5224), and denied said petitioner's cross motion to quash the subpoena and vacate the underlying judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 31, 2009, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner waived her objection to Supreme Court's jurisdiction over her by failing to raise it in her opposition to respondent's motion (see CPLR 3211[e]; Matter of United Servs. Auto. Assn. v Kungel, 72 AD3d 517, 518 [2010]).

Petitioner has not been prejudiced by any technical defects in the judgment in connection with which the information subpoena was served.

An unpleaded defense: CPLR § 3018

CPLR § 3018

Sullivan v American Airlines, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 00215 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The defendants did not waive their contention that the plaintiffs relinquished all claims regarding the statements in the final advisories because they accepted reinstatement. Although the defendants failed to plead as an affirmative defense that the plaintiffs relinquished their claims (see CPLR 3018[b]), an unpleaded defense may serve as the basis for granting summary judgment in the absence of surprise or prejudice to the opposing party (see Lerwick v Kelsey, 24 AD3d 918, 919; Sheils v County of Fulton, 14 AD3d 919, 921; Allen v Matthews, 266 AD2d 782; Rogoff v San Juan Racing Assn., 77 AD2d 831, 832, affd 54 NY2d 883).

Interesting 3211(a)(8) Motion

CPLR R. 3211(a)(8)

Lettieri v Cushing, 2011 NY Slip Op 00194 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by adding to the provision denying that branch of the defendants' motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Jumpking, Inc., a further provision that the denial is without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery on the issue of whether personal jurisdiction may be established over that defendant; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As the party seeking to assert personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on this issue (see Castillo v Star Leasing Co.,69 AD3d 551; Shore Pharm. Providers, Inc. v Oakwood Care Ctr., Inc., 65 AD3d 623, 624; Brinkmann v Adrian Carriers, Inc., 29 AD3d 615, 616; Ying Jun Chen v Lei Shi, 19 AD3d 407). However, "in opposing a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) on the ground that discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction is necessary, plaintiffs need not make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, but instead must only set forth, a sufficient start, and show[ ] their position not to be frivolous'" (Shore Pharm. Providers, Inc. v Oakwood Care Ctr., Inc., 65 AD3d at 624, quoting Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467). "[T]he plaintiffs need only demonstrate that facts may exist' to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant" (Ying Jun Chen v Lei Shi, 19 AD3d at 408, quoting Peterson v Spartan Indus.,33 NY2d at 467; see Castillo v Star Leasing Co., 69 AD3d 551). [*2]

Here, in opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss, the plaintiff established that facts "may exist" to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant Jumpking, Inc. (hereinafter Jumpking), and made a "sufficient start" to warrant further disclosure on the issue of whether personal jurisdiction may be established over that defendant (Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d at 467; see Castillo v Star Leasing Co.,69 AD3d at 552). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Jumpking. However, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants' motion without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery on the issue of whether personal jurisdiction may be established over Jumpking (see Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d at 467; Castillo v Star Leasing Co., 69 AD3d at 552).

In addition, CPLR 3212(f) permits a party opposing a motion for summary judgment to obtain further discovery when it appears that facts supporting the position of the opposing party exist but cannot be stated (see Botros v Flamm, 77 AD3d 602; Family-Friendly Media, Inc. v Recorder Tel. Network, 74 AD3d 738; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v LaMattina & Assoc., Inc., 59 AD3d 578). Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, with leave to renew upon the completion of disclosure, that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., doing business as Sam's Club.

CPLR R. 3025

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

Giunta's Meat Farms, Inc. v Pina Constr. Corp.

Generally, leave to amend a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave (see Rosicki, Rosicki & Assoc., P.C. v Cochems, 59 AD3d 512; Janssen v Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Ctr., 59 AD3d 15, 27; Bennett v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 51 AD3d 959; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 222, 227). Furthermore, a court should not examine the merits or legal sufficiency of the proposed amendment unless it is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit on its face (see Rosicki, Rosicki & Assoc., P.C. v Cochems, 59 AD3d at 514; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d at 227).

Order directing to file NOI the same as 90 day notice.

CPLR R. 3216 Want of prosecution

CPLR § 2004 Extensions of time generally

Fenner v County of Nassau, 2011 NY Slip Op 00178 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The certification order of the Supreme Court dated February 19, 2008, directing the plaintiff to file a note of issue within 90 days, and warning that the complaint would be deemed dismissed without further order of the Supreme Court if the plaintiff failed to comply with that directive, had the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Sicoli v Sasson, 76 AD3d 1002; Rodriguez v Five Towns Nissan, 69 AD3d 833; Petersen v Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 AD3d 783). Having received a 90-day notice, the plaintiff was required either to serve and file a timely note of issue or to move pursuant to CPLR 2004, prior to the default date, to extend the time within which to serve and file a note of issue (see Sharpe v Osorio, 21 AD3d 467, 468; DeVore v Lederman, 14 AD3d 648, 649; Bokhari v Home Depot U.S.A., 4 AD3d 381, 382). In light of the plaintiff's failure to do either, the complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Petersen v Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 AD3d 783).

To vacate the dismissal of the complaint, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for his failure to comply with the certification order and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216[e]; Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 503; Rodriguez v Five Towns Nissan, 69 AD3d at 834; Davis v Cardiovascular Consultants of Long Is., P.C., 65 AD3d 1076, 1077; Petersen v Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 AD3d 783). [*2]

In support of his motion, the plaintiff failed to proffer any excuse for his failure to comply with the certification order. The excuse of law office failure proffered by the plaintiff's attorney for the first time in a reply affirmation was not properly before the Supreme Court (seeCPLR 2214; 47 Thames Realty, LLC v Robinson, 61 AD3d 923, 924; Murray v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 52 AD3d 792, 794; Levine v Forgotson's Cent. Auto & Elec., Inc., 41 AD3d 552, 553). Moreover, the conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure did not rise to the level of a reasonable excuse (see Petersen v Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 AD3d at 784; Matter of Bloom v Lubow, 45 AD3d 680; Lugauer v Forest City Ratner Co., 44 AD3d 829, 830). Furthermore, the plaintiff's motion papers failed to establish the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see Dixon v Village of Spring Val., 50 AD3d 943; Apostolakis v Centereach Fire Dist., 300 AD2d 516; Sandstrom v Rodriguez, 221 AD2d 513).

Late Expert: CPLR 3101(d)

CPLR § 3101(d) Trial Preparation (2) Materials

Campos v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 2011 NY Slip Op 00344 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The expert witness disclosure required by CPLR 3101(d) was served by the plaintiff 6½ years after the incidents complained of, 4 years after the action was commenced, almost 4 years after the original bill of particulars was served, and 1½ years after the amended bill of particulars was served. The expert witness disclosure contained new theories of liability which were not readily discernable from the allegations set forth in the bills of particulars. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to preclude the plaintiff's expert and any other witnesses called by the plaintiff from testifying concerning certain unpleaded allegations relating to the defendants' alleged malpractice in, inter alia, leaving the patient, Hilda Campos, unattended, leaving the bed rails of her bed down, and allowing her to fall out of her hospital bed onto the floor (see Navarette v Alexiades, 50 AD3d 869, 870;Navarette v Alexiades, 50 AD3d 872, 872; Durant v Shuren, 33 AD3d 843, 844).

Stuff I meant to post but didn’t feel like it at the time.

Bonik v Tarrabocchia, 2010 NY Slip Op 07878 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

The plaintiff failed to rebut the defendant's sworn statement that he never received a copy of the order entered July 1, 2004, which, inter alia, scheduled a conference for September 29, 2004. The assertion of the plaintiff's attorney that she personally served that order upon the then- pro se defendant was not supported by a proper affidavit of service or other proof of service (see Lambert v Schreiber, 69 AD3d 904). A written statement prepared by the plaintiff's attorney on August 4, 2004, was neither sworn to before a notary public nor subscribed and affirmed to be true under the penalties of perjury and, thus, did not constitute competent evidence of service (see CPLR 2106; Moore v Tappen, 242 AD2d 526). Without notice of the conference, the defendant's "default" was a nullity, as was the remedy imposed by the Supreme Court as a consequence (see CPLR 5015[a][4]; Pelaez v Westchester Med. Ctr., 15 AD3d 375, 376; Tragni v Tragni, 21 AD3d 1084, 1085; cf. Hwang v Tam, 72 AD3d 741, 742). In this situation, vacatur of the default is required as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious defense is required (see Pelaez v Westchester Med. Ctr., 15 AD3d at 376; Kumer v Passafiume, 258 AD2d 625, 626). Consequently, the subsequent inquest, the judgment entered March 21, 2006, and the order dated July 16, 2007, were all nullities, and must be vacated. In addition, there was no competent proof that the plaintiff served the defendant with notice of the inquest, a copy of the judgment entered March 22, 2006, with notice of entry, or a copy of the order entered July 20, 2007, with notice of entry.

Rizzo v Kay, 2010 NY Slip Op 09493 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, it was not error for the trial court to allow testimony on the issue of whether the appellant abandoned treatment of the plaintiff before fully completing her dental work, and, in effect, to conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at trial by submitting a claim of abandonment to the jury. "A trial court generally has broad discretion to deem the pleadings amended to conform to the evidence presented at the [trial], even absent a motion by a party, provided [that] there is no significant prejudice or surprise to the party opposing the amendment" (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Joseph, 35 AD3d 730, 731; see CPLR 3025[c]; A-1 Check Cashing Serv. v Goodman, 148 AD2d 482). Here, the appellant was not prejudiced or surprised by the admission of evidence on the issue of abandonment and the submission of this issue to the jury, since the issue was explored, and relevant evidence obtained, during discovery (see Alomia v New York City Tr. Auth., 292 AD2d 403, 406; Diaz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 289 AD2d 365, 366).

It was also proper for the trial court to dismiss the appellant's cross claim against the defendant Joseph Maniscalco. The plaintiff failed to present any expert evidence that Dr. Maniscalco departed from good and accepted standards of dental practice, and therefore agreed to withdraw her dental malpractice claim against Dr. Maniscalco at the close of her case. While the appellant opposed Dr. Maniscalco's motion to dismiss the cross claim against him upon the ground that there was a factual dispute as to whether Dr. Maniscalco was an independent contractor who could be held liable for his own acts of malpractice, the appellant's expert witness disclosure statement failed to identify any departures from good and accepted standards of dental practice which Dr. Maniscalco may have committed. Under these circumstances, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in ruling that the appellant would be precluded from offering expert testimony as to whether Dr. Maniscalco committed any acts of dental malpractice (see CPLR 3101[d][1][i]; Lucian v Schwartz, 55 AD3d 687, 688; Parlante v Cavallero, 73 AD3d 1001; Schwartzberg v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 28 AD3d 463, 464), and in concluding that absent such expert testimony, the appellant could not establish a prima facie case of dental malpractice against Dr. Maniscalco, and therefore could not prevail upon his cross claim (see Perricone-Bernovich v Gentle Dental, 60 AD3d 744, 745; Sohn v Sand, 180 AD2d 789, 790.

Comice v Justin's Rest., 2010 NY Slip Op 07884 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 1003 for leave to amend the summons and complaint to add Andre Suite as a defendant. The statute of limitations expired and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the relation-back doctrine was applicable (see CPLR 203[f]; Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173). In order for claims asserted against a new defendant to relate back to the date the claims were filed against an original defendant, the plaintiff must establish, inter alia, that the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against that party as well (see Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d at 178; Arsell v Mass One LLC, 73 AD3d 668, 669; Boodoo v Albee Dental Care, 67 AD3d 717, 718). Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that Suite knew or should have known that, but for a mistake as to the identity of the proper parties, this action would have been brought against him as well (see Boodoo v Albee Dental Care, 67 AD3d at 718; Marino v Westchester Med. Group, P.C., 50 AD3d 861; Yovane v White Plains Hosp. Ctr., 228 AD2d 436, 437; see also Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 26, 34-35).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 1024 to name Andre Suite as a defendant in lieu of "John Doe." In order to employ the procedural mechanism made available by CPLR 1024, a plaintiff must show that he or she made timely efforts to identify the correct party before the statute of limitations expired (see Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d at 29-30; Harris v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Syosset, 16 AD3d 549, 550; Justin v Orshan, 14 AD3d 492, 492-493; Scoma v Doe, 2 AD3d 432, 433; Porter v Kingsbrook OB/GYN Assoc., 209 AD2d 497). Here, the plaintiff failed to make such a showing.

Sanchez v Avuben Realty LLC, 2010 NY Slip Op 08780 (App. Div., 1st 2010)

An application brought pursuant to CPLR 5015 to be relieved from a judgment or order entered on default requires a showing of a reasonable excuse and legal merit to the defense asserted (see Crespo v A.D.A. Mgt., 292 AD2d 5, 9 [2002]). While the failure to keep a current address with the Secretary of State is generally not a reasonable excuse for default under CPLR 5015(a)(1) (id. at 9-10), where a court finds that a defendant failed to "personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense," relief from a default may be permitted (CPLR 317; see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 142 [1986]).

Here, notwithstanding the Secretary of State's maintenance of the wrong corporate address, the evidence of record demonstrates that defendant did receive notice of the summons in time to interpose a defense, and inexplicably failed to do so. It is undisputed that six months after the complaint's filing, counsel for defendant's insurer contacted plaintiff's counsel to discuss settlement, at which time he was informed of the then-pending motion for default judgment. The very fact that settlement options were discussed at this time evidences that defendant was aware of plaintiff's action. Moreover, vacatur of a default judgment is not warranted merely because the default was occasioned by lapses on the part of an insurance carrier (see Klein v Actors & Directors Lab, 95 AD2d 757 [1983], lv dismissed 60 NY2d 559 [1983];Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 672 [2006]). The evidence of record also indicates that five months after filing of the summons and complaint, copies thereof were delivered to an undisputably valid address for defendant, as was notice of entry of the Supreme Court's March 26, 2007 order granting plaintiff's motion for default judgment and [*2]noticing an inquest as to damages. Still defendant took no action until approximately two-and-a-half years after the complaint's filing, when plaintiff attempted to collect on the Supreme Court's judgment.

Defendant failed to establish entitlement to vacatur of the default judgment under CPLR 5015(a)(3) due to an alleged fraud perpetrated by plaintiff in support of his complaint, as the affidavit it submitted in support of this claim was both conclusory and recounted hearsay.

Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 2010 NY Slip Op 09198 (Ct. App. 2010)

Under CPLR 3042 (d), a court may invoke the relief set forth in CPLR 3126 when a "party served with a demand for a bill of particulars willfully fails to provide particulars which the court finds ought to have been provided pursuant to this rule." CPLR 3126, in turn, governs discovery penalties and applies where a party "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed." The statute contains a list of nonexclusive sanctions and further permits courts to fashion orders "as are just." CPLR 3126 therefore broadly empowers a trial court to craft a conditional order — an order "that grants the motion and imposes the sanction 'unless' within a specified time the resisting party submits to the disclosure" (Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3126:10 ["The conditional order is in fact the most popular disposition under CPLR 3126"]; see also CPLR 3042 [d]).

The situation that developed in this case is, unfortunately, a scenario that we have seen before. In Fiore v Galang (64 NY2d 999 [1985], affg 105 AD2d 970 [3d Dept 1984]), a medical malpractice action, the trial court granted a 30-day conditional order of preclusion directing plaintiffs to serve a bill of particulars on the defendant hospital. Following plaintiffs' lack of compliance with the order, the hospital moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The trial court denied the motion on the condition that plaintiffs serve a bill of particulars and pay $415 to the hospital's attorneys ^[FN3]. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the trial court erred in excusing the default without requiring plaintiff to offer both a reasonable excuse and an affidavit of merit. We affirmed, explaining that "absent an affidavit of merits it was error, as a matter of law, not to grant defendant Hospital's motion for summary judgment" (id. at 1000 [emphasis added]).

***

In reaching this conclusion, we reiterate that "[l]itigation cannot be conducted efficiently if deadlines are not taken seriously, and we make clear again, as we have several times before, that disregard of deadlines should not and will not be tolerated" (Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. [Habiterra Assoc.], 5 NY3d 514, 521 [2005]; see also Wilson v Galicia Contr. & Restoration Corp., 10 NY3d 827, 830 [2008]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2004]; Brill, 2 NY3d at 652-653; Kihl, 94 NY2d at 123).