CPLR 5015(a).

An expert's affidavit, created after the order awarding summary judgment on the plaintiff's default, does not constitute "newly discovered evidence" sufficient to warrant vacatur of the order.

Luna v. Ponce Funeral Homes, Inc., NY Slip Op 07774 (2d Dep't October 30, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 602(a).

Cases may be joined for discovery and trial where there are common questions of law and fact, unless the party opposing the motion demonstrates that a joint trial will prejudice a substantial right. The Appellate Division will accord deference to the motion court's exercise of its discretion.

Lema v. 1148 Corp., NY Slip Op 07866 (1st Dep't October 31, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Court holiday.

Appellate practice.

The right of direct appeal of an order terminates with the entry of the order and judgment.

M & T Bank v. Biordi, NY Slip Op 07775 (2d Dep't October 30, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Family Court.

Family Court is a court of limited subject matter jurisdiction, and cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute.

Matter of Hamrahi v. Brock, NY Slip Op 07781 (2d Dep't October 30 2019)

Here is the decision.

Leave to renew.

The movant must raise new facts that would have changed the outcome of the prior motions, and provide a reasonable excuse for failing to present those facts at the proper time, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e]. Renewal is not a second chance for parties who have failed to exercise due diligence in making their original factual presentation, and  it is granted sparingly.

Wade v. Giacobbe, NY Slip Op 07852 (1st Dep't October 31,2019)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal of a conspiracy claim.

In the absence of a viable tort claim, there can be no conspiracy claim.

Sabo v. Candero, NY Slip Op 07720 (1st Dep't October 29, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Answering papers on a summary judgment motion.

The non-movant is not required to address an issue that is not raised in the moving papers.

,Massillon v. Regalado, NY Slip Op 07717 (1st Dep't October 29, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 306-b.

If a plaintiff does not serve the summons and complaint within 120 days of commencement of the action, "the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service."  Good cause and interest of justice are two separate and independent standards. In order to establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service. The interest of justice is a broader standard meant to accommodate service that is late due to mistake, confusion or oversight, as long as there is no prejudice to the defendant. The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the parties' competing interests. Under the interest of justice standard, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of the plaintiff's request for an extension of time, and prejudice to the defendant.

Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Wilson, NY Slip Op 07595 (2d Dep't October 23, 2019)

Here is the decision.

A claim of unjust enrichment.

To prevail on the cause of action, the plaintiff must establish that it conferred a benefit on the defendant, and that the defendant will retain that benefit without adequately compensating the plaintiff. In determining the viability of the claim, the essential inquiry is whether it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what the plaintiff seeks to recover.

Beaman v. Awaye Realty Mgt., LLC, NY Slip Op 07562 (2d Dep't October 23, 2019)

Here is the decision.

General Obligations Law § 5-1401.

Where the parties' agreement falls within the ambit of the statute, New York will enforce the choice-of-law clause, regardless of whether there is a connection between the transaction and New York.

ABB, Inc. v. Havtech, LLC, NY Slip Op 07693 (1st Dep't October 24, 2019)

Here is the decision.