The doctrine of collateral estoppel.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, with costs, the Order granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' legal malpractice claim, in light of the prior findings in a related bankruptcy proceeding. The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating, in a subsequent action or proceeding, an issue that was clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity. The motion court properly concluded that plaintiffs were in privity with the debtors in the prior proceeding, where the issue was the validity of the same loan transactions that underly the claim here. The Appellate Division rejected plaintiffs' argument that collateral estoppel does not apply because defendants were not parties to the prior proceeding. The law is clear that a party seeking to invoke the doctrine need not have been a party to the prior action. The Appellate Division also rejected plaintiffs' argument that their claims are not barred because there was no malpractice claim in the prior proceeding. As the motion court found, collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of already decided factual issues, regardless of whether the causes of action are the same.

Bauhouse Group I, Inc. v. Kalikow, NY Slip Op. 00001 (1st Dep't January 5, 2021)

Here is the decision.

In rem tax foreclosure actions.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Orders which denied the motions to vacate the judgments of in rem foreclosures granted on default and the deeds transferring the properties. The judgments of foreclosure against the properties were duly entered in the office of the County Clerk, after publication of notices that complied with the applicable law, Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-406[c], as well as due process. Accordingly, the presumption of regularity of these proceedings, pursuant to Administrative Code § 11-411, became conclusive four months after entry of the judgments of foreclosure. As appellants did not make their motions to vacate the judgments or take any action to redeem the subject properties within the four-month period specified by § 11-412.1[d], the motions to vacate are time-barred, pursuant to § 11-412.1 [h].

Matter of In Rem Tax Foreclosure Action No. 52, NY Slip Op 08023 (1st Dep't December 29, 2020)

Here is the decision.

A contractual limitations period.

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, with costs, the Order which granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaims, and denied the motion. Parties may contract for a shorter period to commence an action than set forth by statute, provided that the period is reasonable. However, the limitations period is unenforceable if the contract imposes a condition precedent that cannot reasonably be met within the contractual limitations period. In deciding that, the circumstances, not the time, must be the determining factor. The relevant question when deciding whether a limitations period is enforceable is whether and when the damages were objectively ascertainable. In addition, a contractual limitations period is unenforceable without a concrete determination of the accrual of damages. Here, the provisions setting a one-year limitation period for claims arising out of the contracts are reasonable on their face. However, the contracts also provide that payments by the owner are conditions precedent to any sums owed by plaintiff to defendant. It was neither fair nor reasonable to impose such a condition precedent, which was not within defendant's control, but had the capability of nullifying its claim. 

Turner Constr. Co. v. Nastasi & Assoc., Inc., NY Slip Op 08024 (1st Dep't December 29, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Motions to renew.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, with costs, the Order which denied plaintiffs' motion to renew defendants' summary judgment motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221(e). The new affidavit, submitted by a former assistant, was merely cumulative of information that had already been presented to the court, and, therefore, was insufficient to warrant renewal. Plaintiffs also failed to provide a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the affidavit in a timely manner, pursuant to 2221[e][3]. While plaintiffs made some vague assertions regarding attempts to contact the affiant earlier, they have not put forth any specific information regarding their efforts to locate her or to obtain the affidavit. Further, the affidavit suggests that the affiant was simply busy with a move, travel, and an injury, and otherwise did not want to get involved with the case. Such a conclusory claim as to unavailability is not a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts with the original application. Neither have plaintiffs provided an adequate explanation for the year-long delay between their obtaining the affidavit and their filing the motion. The Appellate Division noted that, even giving the affidavit full weight, the facts contained therein - which defendants largely contest - would not change the outcome of the case.

Wang v. LaFrieda, NY Slip Op 08025 (1st Dep't December 29, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Waiver as an equitable defense.

Waiver may be argued as an equitable defense to the remedy of rescission.

Colony Ins. Co. v. Danica Group, LLC, NY Slip Op 08026 (1st Dep't December 29, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

An argument that is raised for the first time on appeal is unpreserved for review by the Appellate Division.

Liebowitz v. Liebowitz, NY Slip Op 07710 (1st Dep't December 22, 2020)

Here is the decision.

50 years.

Discovery disputes.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Order which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motions to strike the City defendants' answer or preclude the City from offering evidence at trial. Contrary to the City's contention, plaintiff's failure to submit an affirmation of good faith on her motion to strike the City's answer based on discovery failures was not fatal, in light of plaintiff's counsel's affirmation showing that the issue of whether the City's undisputedly late disclosures were willful, contumacious, or due to bad faith would not be resolved between the parties. However, plaintiff failed to demonstrate conclusively that the City's discovery failures were willful, contumacious or due to bad faith. Plaintiff's principal complaint is that the City disclosed new documents in support of its motion for summary judgment and on the eve of trial. She characterized the late disclosures as "guerilla" or "ambush" tactics, but did not explain how they affected her case. While the Appellate Division did not condone the City's actions, it agreed with the motion court that plaintiff failed to show that the late disclosures were part of a pattern to ignore or thwart discovery orders. 

Practice point:  If plaintiff did not believe that discovery was complete when she filed her note of issue, her remedy was to move to compel specific discovery.

Nugent v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 07715 (1st Dep't December 22, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Judicial estoppel.

The claim is not barred by judicial estoppel given that, even if contradictory, none of defendants' prior positions prevailed.

Patmos Fifth Real Estate, Inc. v. Mazi Bldg., LLC, NY Slip Op 07716 (1st Dep't December 22, 2020)

Here is the decision.

Sanctions.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the court exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions against defendant, in the amount of $1,500 for plaintiff's attorney fees and costs, and $5,000 to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection, due to multiple acts of frivolous and dilatory litigation tactics. Defendant submitted three consecutive applications seeking to stay enforcement of the court's summary judgment order. After defendant's initial application was denied by the First Department, it sought a stay from the motion court without sufficiently informing it of the denial of relief. When the motion court also declined a stay, defendant again sought interim relief from the First Department.

Korn v. Sacco & Fillas LLP, NY Slip Op 07707 (1st Dep't December 22, 2020)

Here is the decision.

A motion for a default judgment.

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the Order which denied plaintiff's motion, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. A plaintiff moving for a default judgment based on a defendant's failure to appear must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint and proof of the facts constituting the claim, pursuant to CPLR 3215[f]. Here, plaintiff established that the defaulting defendants have failed to answer the complaint, or to otherwise appear. While declaratory judgment will rarely, if ever, be granted solely on default, the Appellate Division determined that plaintiff sufficiently established the facts of its claim.

PV Holding Corp. v. AB Quality Health Supply Corp., NY Slip Op 07725 (1st Dep't December 22, 2020)

Here is the decision.