pre-judgment interest: CPLR 5001(a)

Scotti v Barrett, 2018 NY Slip Op 07477 [2d Dept. 2018]

On a prior appeal in this action, this Court awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff, inter alia, on the cause of action to recover damages for conversion in the sum of $69,500, representing the amount of estate funds that were wrongfully converted by the defendant Rick Barrett. The Supreme Court subsequently entered an amended judgment that awarded the plaintiff the sum of $69,500 but failed to award prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 9% per annum on that sum. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the amended judgment as failed to award prejudgment interest at the statutory rate on the $69,500 damages award.

“The usual measure of damages for conversion is the value of the property at the time and place of conversion, plus interest” (Fantis Foods v Standard Importing Co., 49 NY2d 317, 326; see Hoffman v Dorner, 86 AD2d 651). Indeed, CPLR 5001(a) provides for the award of prejudgment interest upon sums awarded for the deprivation of or interference with another’s property, and relevant case law clearly establishes that such interest is properly awarded as part of the recovery on a cause of action sounding in conversion (see 23 E. 39th St. Mgt. Corp. v 23 E. 39th St. Dev., LLC, 134 AD3d 629, 632; Hunt v Hunt, 13 AD3d 1041, 1043; Zimmerman v Tarshis, 300 AD2d 477, 478; Eighteen Holding Corp. v Drizin, 268 AD2d 371, 372; Phillips v Catania, 188 AD2d 1029, 1030). Moreover, interest is to be awarded at the statutory rate of 9% per annum (see CPLR 5004; Zimmerman v Tarshis, 300 AD2d at 478; Phillips v Catania, 188 AD2d at 1030; Long Playing Sessions v Deluxe Labs., 129 AD2d 539, 540).

Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a second amended judgment that includes an award of prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 9% per annum on the damages awarded in favor of the plaintiff on the cause of action to recover damages for conversion.

3211(a)(7) and no-fault

Abruscato v Allstate Prop., 2018 NY Slip Op 07279 [2d Dept. 2018]

“Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate” (Rabos v R & R Bagles & Bakery, Inc., 100 AD3d 849, 851-852; see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275).

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss so much of the first cause of action as sought to recover no-fault insurance benefits for lost wages. It is undisputed that the plaintiff did not submit a claim for reimbursement for lost wages, and therefore the defendant’s obligation to pay or deny such a claim never arose (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8; see also Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498; Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 106 AD3d 157).

We also agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting those branches of the defendant’s motion which were to dismiss the second and third causes of action to recover damages for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, respectively. The conduct alleged, even if proven, was not sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support the cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress (see Brunache v MV Transp., Inc., 151 AD3d 1011, 1014; Long Is. Care Ctr., Inc. v Goodman, 137 AD3d 874, 875). Additionally, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant does not give rise to a duty which could furnish a basis for tort liability in negligence (see Pirrelli v OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC, 129 AD3d 689, 692; Baumann v Hanover Community Bank, 100 AD3d 814, 816).

We also agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the fourth cause of action, which sought declaratory relief, since the plaintiff has an adequate alternative remedy in the form of a cause of action to recover no-fault insurance benefits (see Stuckey v Lutheran Care Found. Network, Inc., 140 AD3d 734, 736; Alizio v Feldman, 82 AD3d 804, 805; BGW Dev. Corp. v Mount Kisco Lodge No. 1552 of Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks of U.S. of Am., 247 AD2d 565, 568).

Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, because the proposed amendments were palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit (see White Knight of Flatbush, LLC v Deacons of Dutch Congregation of Flatbush, 159 AD3d 939; Ferrandino & Son, Inc. v Wheaton Bldrs., Inc., LLC, 82 AD3d 1035, 1037; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 229).

However, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss so much of the first cause of action as sought to recover no-fault insurance benefits for medical expenses. The defendant contends, inter alia, that the plaintiff lacked standing because he had assigned his right to no-fault insurance benefits for medical expenses to his medical providers. Although the defendant submitted evidence that the plaintiff assigned his right to no-fault benefits to two medical providers (hereinafter the assignees), the plaintiff’s evidentiary submissions showed that other medical providers had also billed him for their services. Moreover, upon the defendant’s determination that the injury was not causally related to the motor vehicle accident, the assignees were no longer precluded from seeking payment from the plaintiff (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 312, 318; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199; Rotwein v Stancil, 15 Misc 3d 19, 21). Since there was a failure of insurance coverage rendering the plaintiff personally responsible for the medical bills (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d at 318; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d at 199; Rotwein v Stancil, 15 Misc 3d at 21), the plaintiff has a cause of action to recover no-fault insurance benefits for medical expenses from the defendant (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d at 275).

Standing waived

BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Chertov, 2018 NY Slip Op 07281 [2d Dept. 2018]

The defendant waived the defense of lack of standing (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Erobobo, 127 AD3d 1176; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239). Therefore, BAC was not required to establish its standing in order to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Citigroup v Kopelowitz, 147 AD3d 1014, 1015; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Butler, 129 AD3d 777, 780).

Personal Jurisdiction waived and waited too long to bring up 317

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Soussis, 2018 NY Slip Op 07294 [2d Dept. 2018]

The defendant waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over her. The defendant appeared in the action by serving a notice of appearance, and neither she nor her attorney moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction at that time or asserted lack of personal jurisdiction in a responsive pleading (see CPLR 320[a], [b]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Pepe, 161 AD3d 811, 812-813; Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Zimmerman, 157 AD3d 846, 847; American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v Arklis, 150 AD3d 1180, 1181; National Loan Invs., L.P. v Piscitello, 21 AD3d 537, 538).

The defendant’s contention that she was entitled to relief pursuant to CPLR 317 is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Saketos, 158 AD3d 610, 612).

CPLR 3215 and 317 standard

Kircher v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 07295 [2d Dept. 2018]

“On a motion for leave to enter judgment against a defendant for the failure to answer or appear, a plaintiff must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting its claim, and proof of the defendant’s default” (Triangle Props. # 2, LLC v Narang, 73 AD3d 1030, 1032; see CPLR 3215[f]; Mercury Cas. Co. v Surgical Ctr. at Milburn, LLC, 65 AD3d 1102). Here, the plaintiff submitted proof that it properly effected service of process upon the defendant pursuant to Insurance Law § 1212 by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the Superintendent of Insurance (see Insurance Law § 1212[a]). The plaintiff also submitted proof of the facts constituting the claim and proof of the defendant’s default in appearing or answering the complaint. Thus, the plaintiff established her entitlement to enter a default judgment against the defendant (see Seidler v Knopf, 153 AD3d 874, 875; Cruz v Keter Residence, LLC, 115 AD3d 700).

However, in opposition, the defendant established its entitlement to relief from its default under CPLR 317. “Pursuant to CPLR 317, a defaulting defendant who was served with a summons other than by personal delivery’ may be permitted to defend the action upon a finding by the court that the defendant did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a potentially meritorious defense” (Booso v Tausik Bros., LLC, 148 AD3d 1108, 1108, quoting CPLR 317; see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Gershman v Midtown Moving & Stor., Inc., 123 AD3d 974, 975). There is no necessity for a defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 317 to show a reasonable excuse for its delay (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A. C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d at 141; Booso v Tausik Bros., LLC, 148 AD3d at 1108; see also Samet v Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., 299 AD2d 404, 405). Here, the defendant met its burden of showing that it did not receive actual notice of the summons, which was delivered to the Superintendent of Insurance, in time to defend itself against this action (see Gershman v Midtown Moving & Stor., Inc., 123 AD3d at 975; Ferguson v Shu Ham Lam, 59 AD3d 387, 388; Hospital for Joint Diseases v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 543, 544). Moreover, there is no basis in the record upon which to conclude that the defendant was deliberately attempting to avoid service of process (see Gershman v Midtown Moving & Stor., Inc., 123 AD3d at 975; Samet v Bedford Flushing Holding Corp., 299 AD2d at 405). Furthermore, the defendant met its burden of demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense.

3015(e)

Kristeel, Inc. v Seaview Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07296 [2d Dept. 2018]

“Pursuant to CPLR 3015(e), a complaint that seeks to recover damages for breach of a home improvement contract or to recover in quantum meruit for home improvement services is subject to dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) if it does not allege compliance with the licensing requirement” (ENKO Constr. Corp. v Aronshtein, 89 AD3d 676, 677; see Holistic Homes, LLC v Greenfield, 138 AD3d 689, 690; Westchester Stone, Sand & Gravel v Marcella, 262 AD2d 403, 404). Moreover, a home improvement contractor who fails to possess and plead possession of a valid license as required by relevant laws may not commence an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien (see Nicotra v Manger, 64 AD3d 547).

Conditional Order 3126

McIntosh v New York City Partnership Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07303 [2d Dept. 2018]

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, under the language of the conditional order of preclusion, the plaintiffs’ failure to respond to outstanding discovery demands from even a single other party would result in the plaintiffs being precluded from presenting any evidence of damages at trial. The plaintiffs did not meet their burden to avoid the adverse effect of the conditional order of preclusion, as they did not “demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to comply with the order and the existence of a potentially meritorious” cause of action (Naiman v Fair Trade Acquisition Corp., 152 AD3d at 780).

Successive SJ

Rogers v DeGennaro, 2018 NY Slip Op 07343 [2d Dept. 2018]

“Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause” (Tingling v C.I.N.H.R., Inc., 120 AD3d 570, 570; see Vinar v Litman, 110 AD3d 867, 868; Blanche, Verte & Blanche, Ltd. v Joseph Mauro & Sons, 91 AD3d 693, 693; Soto v City of New York, 37 AD3d 589, 589). Here, Rogers made neither showing. Therefore, we agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of that branch of Rogers’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Settlement and Cross-motion timing

Zisholtz & Zisholtz, LLP v Mandel, 2018 NY Slip Op 07349 [2d Dept. 2018]

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it failed to submit any evidence that the purported open court settlement agreement of January 28, 2016, constituted a valid and binding settlement agreement pursuant to CPLR 2104 (see Diarassouba v Urban, 71 AD3d 51, 54; Maldonado v Novartis Pharms. Corp., 40 AD3d 940). Rather, the plaintiff submitted only the January 29 stipulation, which was not executed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the January 29 stipulation did not constitute an enforceable settlement agreement binding upon the plaintiff and the appellant (see CPLR 2104). In the absence of an enforceable settlement agreement, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion.

We also disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying the cross motion as untimely. The plaintiff served its motion by regular mail on March 17, 2016, with a return date of April 6, 2016. In order to make effective its demand for seven days’ notice of answering papers or a cross motion (see CPLR 2214[b]; CPLR 2215), the plaintiff was required to have mailed its motion papers at least 21 days prior to the return date (see CPLR 2103[b][2]; CPLR 2214[b]; Matter of Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v Fell, 53 AD3d 760, 761-762). The plaintiff mailed its motion papers only 20 days before the return date. Thus, the cross motion, which was served six days before the return date, was timely (see CPLR 2215).

Demetriou v Wolfer, 2018 NY Slip Op 07288 [2d Dept. 2018]

In July 2012, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for dental malpractice. On Friday, October 30, 2015, the plaintiff, by text message, directed her former attorney to discontinue the action. On that date, the former attorney and defense counsel executed a stipulation of discontinuance (see CPLR 3217[a][2]). On Saturday, October 31, 2015, the plaintiff, by text message, directed her former attorney to, among other things, “not dismiss my case under any circumstances; please retract . . . instructions to discontinue.” Within 30 minutes of receiving that message, the plaintiff’s former counsel advised the plaintiff that the case had already been discontinued. The stipulation of discontinuance was then filed on Monday, November 2, 2015. The plaintiff moved, inter alia, to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance. CPLR 2104 provides that, “[a]n agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered.” Here, there is no dispute that on October 30, 2015, the plaintiff’s former counsel had actual authority from his client to enter into the stipulation discontinuing the action on her behalf (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230; Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, 56 AD3d 334, 335). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the stipulation of discontinuance clearly evidenced the plaintiff’s intent to discontinue the action as of October 30, 2015, notwithstanding that she changed her mind prior to the filing of the stipulation on November 2, 2015 (see Lim v Choices, Inc., 60 AD3d 739, 740). Pursuant to CPLR 2104, the stipulation must be regarded as a valid, binding contract (see Pile v Grant, 41 AD3d 810), even though it did not effect a discontinuance until it was filed with the clerk of the court on November 2, 2015 (CPLR 3217[a][2]). In seeking to vacate the stipulation, the plaintiff failed to meet her burden to establish good cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as that the stipulation was the result of duress, fraud, mistake, or overreaching, or that the terms of the stipulation were unconscionable (see Chae Shin Oh v Jeannot, 160 AD3d 701; Pieter v Polin, 148 AD3d 1191).

The bold is mine.

Full faith and credit

Repwest Ins. Co. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06505 [1st Dept. 2018]

There is a split in authority as to whether the existence of a territory of coverage clause constitutes sufficient contact with the forum state to support specific jurisdiction. For example, while the Ninth Circuit in Farmers Ins. Exch. held that an insurer had shown purposeful availment, the court in King v American Family Mut. Ins. (632 F3d 570 [9th Cir 2011] and Hunt v Erie Ins. Group (728 F2d 1244 [9th Cir 1984]) held otherwise.

We disagree with Rossman and Farmers to the extent that they hold that the territory clause of a foreign insurer’s policy and the situs of the accident provides sufficient contact with the forum state.

We find that minimum contacts has not been established on this record. Countrywide did not purposefully avail itself of conducting activities within North Carolina. It is undisputed that Countrywide has never been licensed or authorized to do business in any capacity in North Carolina. At all times relevant to this suit, Countrywide has only been licensed to issue insurance policies within New York State. Countrywide has never maintained an office or employees in North Carolina. It is a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in New York. Countrywide has never conducted or solicited business in or from North Carolina. There is a qualitative distinction between contracting to cover an insured under a territory of coverage clause and the insurer of the policy being amenable to being haled into court anywhere in the United States in a dispute with another insurer. Countrywide cannot reasonably foresee being haled into court in a state where it did not purposefully direct its activities (see D & R Global Selections, S.L., 29 NY3d at 300).

Moreover, conferring jurisdiction also violates fair play and substantial justice. Since Countrywide has no connection with North Carolina, it would be a burden for the insurer to litigate the subrogation claim with Repwest in that state. Repwest, while authorized to do business in North Carolina, is an Arizona corporation with its principal place of business in Phoenix.