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.
Link to PDF.
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.
Aikanat v Spruce Assoc., L.P., 2020 NY Slip Op 02188 [1st Dept. 2020]
The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to vacate the note of issue or permit post-note of issue discovery in light of defendants’ failure to seek the discovery at an earlier time (see generally Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 745 [2000]). Although defendants requested authorization to obtain plaintiff’s tax returns in 2015, they took no action to enforce their request until after the note of issue was filed. Similarly, they did not seek the Facebook Data until soon before the note of issue was filed, despite the asserted need for the information based on plaintiff’s testimony in his depositions, the last of which was taken in July 2018.
Defendants contend that the note of issue should be vacated because plaintiff misrepresented in the certificate of readiness that discovery was complete. However, the certificate of readiness correctly stated that plaintiff responded to all outstanding discovery requests, in that objections are an appropriate response. Furthermore, defendants failed to indicate why they are entitled to the discovery they belatedly sought; why the information in the tax returns was not available from another less private source, such as plaintiff’s employer’s payroll records (see Gama Aviation Inc. v Sandton Capital Partners, LP, 113 AD3d 456, 457 [1st Dept 2014]); and why they waited so long to request the social media information.
Defendants also assert that they were also improperly denied the opportunity to depose a corporate witness from third-party defendant BGC Partners, Inc. (BGC), who had knowledge of their claims for contractual indemnification and failure to procure insurance, and that the first witness produced by BGC did not have the requisite knowledge. However, they fail to indicate why they waited until after the note of issue was filed to seek this discovery inasmuch as the sale of assets to BGC occurred in April 2012, and defendants deposed the corporate witness in August 2018. The court further noted that defendants moved for summary judgment on their indemnification claims against BGC, demonstrating that the additional discovery was superfluous.
Bold is mine.
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.
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.
bruteforcelawyer.com 