CPLR 5015(a)(1).

Defendants provided a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear for conferences and depositions, which led to the striking of their answer, based on the neglect of their attorney, who was suspended and then disbarred during the pendency of the proceedings, as a result of complaints concerning his neglect of matters and his failure to communicate with other clients.

Perez v. Table Run Estates, Inc., NY Slip Op 00533 (1st Dep't February 2, 2021)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 5015(a)(2).

In order to succeed on a motion to vacate an order or judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the movant must establish that the evidence could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence, and that the newly discovered evidence probably would have produced a different result.

Anghel v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., NY Slip Op 00402 (2d Dep't January 27, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Notes of issue.

Pursuant to the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, at 22 NYCRR 202.21[a], [b], a note of issue must be accompanied by a certificate of readiness, which must state that there are no outstanding requests for discovery, and that the case is ready for trial. Here, the certificate of readiness that was filed with the first note of issue failed to indicate whether physical examinations were completed and whether medical reports were exchanged. As that certificate failed to materially comply with the rules, it was a nullity, and the plaintiff's time to move for summary judgment began to run when the new note of issue was filed.

Andujar v. Boyle, NY Slip Op 00401 (2d Dep't January 27, 2021)

Here is the decision.

The limitations period in a medical malpractice action.

The resumption of treatment, as opposed to the continuation of treatment, is insufficient to toll the statute of limitations.

Estrella v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., NY Slip Op 00491 (1st Dep't January 28, 2021)

Here is the decision.

A fraud claim.

In order to state the cause of action, the plaintiff must plead a material representation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and damages. The claim can be based on a material omission of fact for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to rely on it, the plaintiffs justifiable reliance on the omission, and injury. The element of justifiable reliance is lacking where a sophisticated plaintiff enters into an arms-length transaction, and, with the exercise of ordinary intelligence, could have protected itself through due diligence.

Rapaport v. Strategic Fin. Solutions, LLC, NY Slip Op 00511 (1st Dep't January 28, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Default in a mortgage foreclosure action.

CPLR 3215(c) requires a plaintiff to move for a default judgment within a year of the defendant's default in answering or appearing. In a mortgage foreclosure action, the statutory requirements are satisfied by moving for an order of reference within a year of the default. The plaintiff's failure to make the motion requires dismissal of the action, either upon motion or sua sponte, except where sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed. Sufficient cause requires a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving for a default judgment and a potentially meritorious cause of action.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Nunez, NY Slip Op 00515 (1st Dep't January 28, 2021)

Here is the decision.

A legal malpractice claim.

The claim is dismissed, as plaintiffs' allegations consist solely of purported violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which, standing alone, do not support a malpractice claim.

Volpe v. Munoz & Assoc., LLC, NY Slip Op 00516 (1st Dep't January 28, 2021)

Here is the decision.

General jurisdiction over a corporation.

A corporate defendant's registration to do business in New York, and the designation of the Secretary of State to accept service of process, does not constitute the corporation's consent to submit to the general jurisdiction of New York for causes of action that are unrelated to the corporation's affiliations with New York.

Weik v. LSG Sky Chefs N. Am. Solutions, Inc., NY Slip Op 00517 (January 28, 2021)

Here is the decision.

The notice requirement in a foreclosure action.

The Appellate Division reversed, with costs, the Order which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its foreclosure complaint, and, upon a search of the record, granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, without prejudice. Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie its strict compliance with the notice requirement of RPAPL 1304. The copy of the certified mail receipt it submitted is undated and blank in other parts, and shows the signature of someone other than defendant. The copy of the pre-paid first-class mail envelope has no recipient's name or address on it. Further, the affidavits plaintiff submitted do not demonstrate the loan servicer's employees' familiarity with the mailing practices and procedures of the servicer that had mailed the 90-day notices and the notice of default.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Calhoun, NY Slip Op 00398 (1st Dep't January 26, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Partnerships.

The partnership itself may sue and be sued, pursuant to CPLR 1025.

149-51 Sullivan St. Co. v. Lopez, NY Slip Op 00381 (1st Dep't January 26, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Venue.

A written agreement fixing the place of trial, made before an action is commenced, shall be enforced upon a motion for change of venue, pursuant to CPLR 501 and 511 A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court.

Andreryeva v. Haym Solomon Home for the Aged, LLC, NY Slip Op 00281 (2d Dep't January 21, 2021)

Here is the decision.