CPLR 3215(c).

The statute  provides that "[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed." "It is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant. As long as the plaintiff has initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year of the default, there is no basis for dismissal of the complaint.

1077 Madison St., LLC v. Dickerson, NY Slip Op 04590 (2d Dep't August 4, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Appellate practice.

An action to foreclose a mortgage.

The action is properlyaddressed to a court of equity, which will determine the parties' rights according to equity and good conscience. Here, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination that a "fifty-percent shareholder causing the entity to forego recovery on its only remaining asset goes against every principle of equity."

True Gate Holding, Ltd. v. Baroukhian, NY Slip Op 04588 (1st Dep't July 29, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  CPLR 3215(c).

Premises liability.

Proof that a dangerous condition is open and obvious does not preclude a finding of liability, but, rather, is relevant to the issue of the plaintiff's comparative negligence. In order to succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant must establish that the condition was both open and obvious and, as a matter of law, was not inherently dangerous.

Baran v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., NY Slip Op 04589 (2d Dep't July 28, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  An action to foreclose a mortgage.

Collateral estoppel.

The Appellate Division affirmed, with costs, the Order which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and an order of reference, and denied defendants' cross motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendants are collaterally estopped from relitigating the timeliness of the foreclosure action, which was decided in the court's prior order and affirmed on appeal.

True Gate Holding, Ltd. v. Baroukhian, NY Slip Op 04588 (1st Dep't July 29, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Premises liability.

Appellate practice.

An appeal from a final judgment brings up for review any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment, provided that such non-final judgment or order has not previously been reviewed by the court to which the appeal is taken, pursuant to CPLR 5501[a][1]. Thus, only an appeal from a final judgment will bring up for review prior nonfinal orders.

Shah v. 20 E. 64th St., LLC, NY Slip Op 04587 (1st Dep't July 29, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Collateral estoppel.

A claim for medical malpractice.

In order to establish a physician's liability, a plaintiff must prove that the physician deviated or departed from accepted community standards of practice, and that the alleged departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Generally, expert testimony is necessary to prove a deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause. The expert witness's opinions must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness.

Bacchus-Sirju v. Hollis Women's Ctr., NY Slip Op 04538 (2d Dep't July 28, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  Appellate practice.

A prior property owner's liability.

As a general rule, liability for a dangerous condition does not extend to a prior owner of the premises. There is a narrow exception to the general rule, and there may be liability where a dangerous condition existed at the time of the conveyance, and the new owner has not had a reasonable time to discover the condition if it was unknown, or to remedy the condition once it became known.

Hayden v. 334 Dune Rd., LLC, NY Slip Op 04481 (2d Dep't July 21, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A claim for medical malpractice.

CPLR 3215(f).

Where a foreclosure complaint is not verified, an application for a judgment by default must include an affidavit that sets forth proof of the facts, the default, and the amount due. Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of merit executed by a "Document Execution Specialist" who was employed by the plaintiff's servicing agent. The affiant asserted that she had personal knowledge of the merits of the plaintiff's cause of action based upon her review of various business records. However, since the plaintiff failed to attach the business records upon which the affiant relied, her factual assertions based on those records constitutes inadmissible hearsay, and her affidavit is insufficient to demonstrate proof of the facts constituting the claim.

Deutsche Natl. Bank Trust Co. v. Hossain, NY Slip Op 04480 (2d Dep't July 21, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  A prior property owner's liability.

Appellate practice.

Although no appeal lies from a judgment entered upon the default of an appealing party, pursuant to CPLR 5511, the appeal from such a judgment brings up for review those matters which were the subject of contest before the Supreme Court.

Deutsche Natl. Bank Trust Co. v. Hossain, NY Slip Op 04480 (2d Dep't July 21, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  CPLR 3215(f).

The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that was raised, or could have been raised, in the prior proceeding. The doctrine of collateral estoppel, which applies only to parties who were either a party, or in privity with a party, to a prior action or proceeding, also bars relitigation of an issue which has necessarily been decided in that prior action or proceeding and is determinative of the issues disputed in the present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now alleged to be controlling. In order to establish privity with respect to either res judicata or collateral estoppel, the connection between the parties must be such that the interests of the nonparty can be said to have been represented in the prior proceeding. Although relationship alone is not sufficient to support preclusion, privity includes those who are successors to a property interest, those who control an action although not formal parties to it, and  those whose interest are represented by a party to the action. The party asserting the conclusive effect of a prior judgment has the burden to establish it.

Bravo v. Atlas Capital Group, LLC, NY Slip Op 04478 (1st Dep't July 21, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue: Appellate practice.

CPLR 4528.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell on ice on a curb.  The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, invoking the storm in progress doctrine. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the defendant failed to meet its initial burden as the movant. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the three pages of climatological data that it submitted in support of its motion should have been authenticated because these pages themselves did not indicate that the data contained therein was "taken under the direction of the United States weather bureau," as the statute requires.

Beaton v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 04477 (2d Dep't July 21, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Tomorrow's issue:  The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.