Failure to oppose a motion.

A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon its failure to oppose a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court's discretion. In making its determination, the court should consider factors such as the extent of the delay; prejudice or lack of prejudice to the opposing party; whether there has been willfulness; and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits.

Codispoti v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., NY Slip Op 04187 (2d Dep't August 9, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Arguments raised for the first time in reply papers.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiff's motion, pursuant to CPLR 306-b, to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, an extension of time was not warranted in the interest of justice. The plaintiff did not  raise in its main brief its contention that an extension of time was warranted for good cause. As a result, the plaintiff abandoned any argument it may have had in that regard, despite its attempt to raise the issue in its reply brief. 

Christiana Trust v. Leriche, NY Slip Op 04186 (2d Dep't August 9, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Legal malpractice and attorney deceit.

An action to recover damages for legal malpractice must be commenced within three years of the accrual of the cause of action, whether the underlying theory is based in contract or tort, as set forth in CPLR 214[6]. An action to recover damages for attorney deceit under Judiciary Law § 487 is subject to the six-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 213(1). A legal malpractice action that also alleges attorney deceit must be dismissed as time-barred if not commenced within three years of accrual, if the Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action is premised on the same facts as the legal malpractice cause of action and does not allege distinct damages.

Catsiapis v.  Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP, NY Slip Op 04185 (2d Dep't August 9, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Employment discrimination based on a disability.

A complaint states a cause of action to recover damages for employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law if it alleges that the plaintiff suffers from a disability and that, because of  the disability, the plaintiff was discriminated against in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or the refusal to hire. In order to state a claim under the State law, the complaint and supporting documentation must set forth factual allegations sufficient to show that, with reasonable accommodations, the plaintiff could perform the essential functions of the job.

The New York City Human Rights Law provides broader protections than the State law. In order to state a cause of action for employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the City law, a complaint must allege that the plaintiff was disabled and was discriminated against based on the disability.

Brouillard v. Sunrun, Inc., NY Slip Op 04184 (2d Dep't August 9, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Civil contempt.

In order to prevail on a motion to hold a party in civil contempt, the movant must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the following: (1) that a lawful order of the court was in effect, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate; (2) the appearance, with reasonable certainty, that the order was disobeyed; (3) that the party to be held in contempt had knowledge of the court's order; and (4) prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation. If the movant makes the requisite showing, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to refute the movant's evidence, or to offer evidence of a defense, such as an inability to comply with the order. A hearing is required only if there is a factual dispute which cannot be resolved on the papers alone.

Anonymous 2011-3 v. Anonymous 2011-4, NY Slip Op 04183 (2d Dep't August 9 2023)

Here is the decision.

A defamation claim.

The claim is dismissed to the extent that the particular words complained of are not set forth in the complaint, as required by CPLR 3016[a]. Plaintiff's contention that the statements that were published in the New York Post had been incorporated into the complaint is unavailing, since the article was not annexed to the pleading. 

Hammond v. Equinox Holdings LLC, NY Slip Op 04257 (1st Dep't August 10, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Contrract law.

The burden of proving the existence, terms, and validity of a contract rests on the party seeking to enforce it. This requires, in the first instance, authentication of the purported writing. Authentication may be effected by various means, including, for example, by certificate of acknowledgment, pursuant to CPLR 4538, by comparison of handwriting, pursuant to CPLR 4536, or by the testimony of a person who witnessed the signing of the document. If the signature is forged, the contract is void ab initio.

Knight v. New York & Presbyt. Hosp., NY Slip Op 04258 (1st Dep't August 10, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Contractual forum selection clauses.

Where no material facts are in dispute, a contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable, absent a showing that the provision is unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or that a trial in the designated forum would be so difficult as to deprive the challenging party of its day in court.

Knight v. New York & Presbyt. Hosp., NY Slip Op 04258 (1st Dep't August 10, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Affidavits as hearsay.

An affiant's assertion, without the business records upon which he relied in making the assertion, constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Here, the plaintiff acknowledges that it did not produce the business records regarding the defendant's payment history until it moved for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Thus, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was supported only by an affiant's bare assertion that the defendant was in default. This was inadmissible hearsay.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Giammona, NY Slip Op 04099 (2d Dep't August 2, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Motions for leave to renew.

A motion for leave to renew which is not based upon a change in the law must be based upon new facts that were not offered on the prior motion and that would change the prior determination, and must contain a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][2].

Bockstruck v. Town of Islip, NY Slip Op 04100 (2d Dep't August 2, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Notice requirement in a foreclosure action.

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that "at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower, . . . including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower." Strict compliance with the statutory notice provision is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action. Proof of mailing is established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that the items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure. Here, the plaintiff established that the requisite notice was sent to the defendant in the prescribed manner by submitting the affidavit of an employee of the plaintiff's loan servicer, who had knowledge of the loan servicer's standard office procedures for mailing RPAPL 1304 notices and described those notices, and, by reference to business records annexed to the affidavit, which confirmed that those procedures were adhered to in this case. In opposition, the defendant's bare denial of receipt of the notice was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Gonzalez, NY Slip Op 04098 (2d Dep't August 2, 2023)

Here is the decision.