Appellate practice.

A party cannot raise an argument on appeal where it had defaulted on the motion at issue, thereby failing to raise that argument below.

Hamilton v. 208-214 E. 25h St., LLC, NY Slip Op 06594 (1st Dep't December 21, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Vacating a note of issue.

A motion to vacate the note of issue more than 20 days after it was filed requires a showing of good cause for the delay, or of substantial prejudice to the movant because of unusual or unanticipated circumstances subsequent to the filing, under 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d], [e].  A lack of due diligence in seeking discovery does not constitute an unusual or unanticipated circumstance.

Peterson v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 06601 (1st Dep't December 21, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Venue.

Defendant's motion to change venue is denied. Pursuant to CPLR 510 [1], Defendant met its threshold burden of raising an issue as to plaintiff's residence by annexing documents indicating that plaintiff was a Connecticut resident. However, in opposition, plaintiff, through his detailed affidavit and corroborating documents, sufficiently established his bona fide residency,with some degree of permanency, in Bronx County.

Vaccaro v. Mercedes-Benz USA, NY Slip Op 06603 (1st Dep't December 21, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment.

Summary judgment may be awarded on an unpleaded cause of action if the proof supports the cause of action  and if the opposing party has not been misled to its prejudice.

Castillo v. Hawke Enters., LLC, NY Slip Op 06505 (2d Dep't December 20, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Leave to renew.

CPLR 2221(e)(2) and (3) provides, in relevant part, that "[a] motion for leave to renew . . . shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination . . . [and] shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion." The requirement of new or additional facts that were unknown to the movant is a flexible one and the court, in its discretion, may grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts which were known to the movant at the time the original motion was made. In this slip-and-fall action, the plaintiff established a reasonable justification for her failure to provide the video recording of the condition of the floor in her opposition to the defendant's summary judgment motion. Renewal is granted.

Blackman v. Red Lobster Hospitality, LLC, NY Slip Op 06504 (2d Dep't December 20, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Defaults.

In the absence of an already existing default order or judgment, an affidavit of merit is not necessary when opposing a plaintiff's motion for a default judgment or in seeking to compel a plaintiff to accept the defendant's late answer.

Watts v. Garcia, NY Slip Op 06604 (1st Dep't December 21, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Employment discrimination under New York's Human Rights Laws.

A plaintiff alleging employment discrimination in violation of the State statute must establish (1) membership in a protected class; (2)  qualification to hold the position; and (3) an adverse employment acttion, taken (4) under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.  Under the City statute, the plaintiff must establish that, on the basis of a protected characteristic, he was subject to an unfavorable employment change or treated less well than other employees. Under both the State and City statutes, the action must be commenced within three years of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice or act of discriminatory harassment.

Acala v. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., NY Slip Op 06345 (2d Dep't December 13, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Motions to consolidate.

Consolidation serves the interest of judicial economy and the prevention of inconsistent determinations based on the same facts, pursuant to CPLR 602[a]. The motion will be granted where the two actions arise out of the same underlying occurrence, and they have common questions of law and significantly overlapping facts. Opposition to the motion requires a showing that consolidation would prejudice a substantial right

Steele v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., NY Slip Op 06498 (1st Dep't December 19, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment.

Plaintiff's expert relied on plaintiff's testimony as the basis for his opinion rather than relying on his own observations. Therefore,  his opinion is speculative and fails to raise a question of fact sufficient to defeat defendant's motion.

Williams v. Plaxall Realty Sub, LLC, NY Slip Op 06463 (1st Dep't December 14, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Prima facie tort.

In order to state a cause of action to recover damages for prima facie tort, the plaintiff must allege: (1) the intentional infliction of harm, (2) which results in special damages, (3) without any excuse or justification, (4) by an act or a series of acts which would otherwise be lawful. The complaint must plead the defendant's malicious intent or disinterested malevolence as the sole motive for the challenged conduct.

Banschick v. Johnson, NY Slip Op 06231 (2d Dep't December 6, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Notices to admit.

CPLR 3123(a) authorizes the service of a notice to admit upon a party, and provides that if a timely response thereto is not served, the contents of the notice are deemed admitted. However, the only purpose of the notice is to eliminate from contention those matters which are not in dispute in the litigation and which may be readily disposed of. The notice may not be used to obtain information in lieu of other disclosure devices, or to compel admissions of fundamental and material issues or contested ultimate facts.

American Bldrs. & Contrs. Supply Co., Inc. v. Vinyl is Final, Inc., NY Slip Op 06346 (2d Dep't December 13, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Statutes of limitations.

An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations, pursuant to CPLR 213[4]. Even if a mortgage is payable in installments, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the statute of limitations begins to run on the entire debt.

Anglestone Real Estate Venture Partners Corp. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, NY Slip Op 06109 (2d Dep't November 29, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Easements.

An easement is not a personal right of the landowner but is an appurtenance to the land benefitted by it, and a grant of the land carries with it the grant of the easement. There is an easement appurtenant when the easement is created in writing, subscribed by the creator, and burdens the servient estate for the benefit of the dominant estate. However, the rule in New York is that a deed with a reservation or exception by the grantor in favor of a third party, a so-called stranger to the deed, does not create a valid interest in favor of that third party. Therefore, in order for an easement by grant to be effective, the dominant and servient properties must have a common grantor.

Daniello v. Wagner, NY Slip Op 06116 (2d Dep't November 29, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Account stated.

An account stated is an agreement between parties to an account based upon prior transactions between them with respect to the correctness of the account items and balance due. An agreement may be implied where a defendant retains bills without objecting to them within a reasonable period of time, or makes partial payment on the account.

D & N Lending, LLC v. Tachlis Corp., NY Slip Op 06115 (2d Dep't November 29, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

No appeal lies from the denial of reargument. Here, the appellant's motion, though denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable. The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Constable v. Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., NY Slip Op 06114 (2d Dep't November 29, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Labor Law.

Labor Law § 200 codifies an owner's or general contractor's common-law duty of care to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work. Claims under this section may arise from an alleged defect or dangerous condition on the premises, or from the manner in which the work was performed.  Where the defendant is not an owner or general contractor, there can be no liability under Labor Law § 200.

Tisselin v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases, NY Slip Op 06210 (1st Dep't November 30, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Condominium boards.

The board is responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the condominium, and, to that end, may have broad powers regarding financial decision-making and promulgating regulations. Where the board's disputed decision is based on a governing document which provides that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, the heightened standard of reasonableness is applied in lieu of the usual business judgment rule. This standard of reasonableness hinges on whether the board's decision is legitimately related to the welfare of the condominium.

Wong v Board of Mgrs. of the 45 W. 67th St. Condominium, NY Slip Op 06211 (1st Dep't November 30, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

An order is not appealable as of right where the order did not decide a motion made on notice, pursuant to CPLR 5701[a][2]. However, the Appellate Division may deems the notice of appeal to be a motion for leave to appeal, and it may grant such leave.

Junmei Zhang v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 06325 (1st Dep't December 7, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The Supreme Court properly treated the defendant's motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue its motion for summary judgment, as one for leave to reargue the motion. As the denial of a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable, the appeal from the order must be dismissed.

Brilliantine v. East Hampton Fuel Oil Corp., NY Slip Op 06112 (2d Dep't November 29, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Rear-end collisions.

It is well-settled that a rear-end collision with a slowing or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the the trailing vehicle.  A defendant's claim that the lead vehicle made a sudden stop, without more, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence.

Here, plaintiff met the prima facie burden of establishing his entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability by submitting an affidavit stating that when he braked because of the 15 miles per hour speed limit imposed in a construction area, defendant's car collided with the rear of his vehicle.

In opposition, defendant failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the accident. Defendant failed to establish that she maintained a safe following distance, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a], and that plaintiff's repeated braking was not foreseeable given the speed limitation in the construction zone.

Plaintiff's motion was not premature, pursuant to CPLR 3212[f]. His affidavit established that a rear-end collision occurred, and defendant was in a position to proffer sufficient relevant information concerning the circumstances of the accident.

Ahmad v. Behal, NY Slip Op 06196 (1st Dep't November 30, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment.

Successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause.  Evidence is not newly discovered simply because it was not submitted on the previous motion. Instead, the evidence that was not submitted must be used to establish facts that were not available to the party at the time it made its initial motion and which could not have been established through alternative evidentiary means.

Here, the defendant failed to establish that the evidence submitted in support of its second motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for damages relating to the diminution in value of certain real property and of certain artwork, purportedly demonstrating that the plaintiffs did not sustain any damages as a result of an oil spill, was not available to it, and could not have been submitted, on its prior motion.

In any event, the conflicting experts' opinions submitted by the parties raise issues of fact which preclude summary judgment.

Defendant's motion is denied.

Brilliantine v. East Hampton Fuel Oil Corp., NY Slip 06111 (2d Dep't November 29, 2023) 

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

A stipulation of settlement that is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation.  In interpreting a stipulation of settlement, the court should arrive at a construction that will give fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties in order to reach a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties so that their reasonable expectations will be realized.  A court may not rewrite an agreement by adding or excising terms under the guise of construction, and it may not construe the language in such a way as would distort the contract's apparent meaning. Neither can a court cannot reform an agreement so as to conform to what it thinks is proper, if the parties have not assented to such a reformation.

Anderson v. Anderson, NY Slip Op 06108 (2d Dep't November 29, 2023)

Here is the decision.

1941.

Contract law.

The basic principles of contract interpretation apply to by-laws and offering plans. The relevant provisions of related documents must be read together, and where the language of the instrument at issue is unambiguous, it will be upheld and enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.

Mazumdar v. Board of Mgrs. of Striver Gardens Condominium, NY Slip Op 05988 (1st Dep't November 21, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Premises liability.

In a premises liability case, the defendant-property owner, or a party in possession or control of the property, who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it. A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when it is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected. In order to meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the accident.

Cosme v. New York City Dept. of Educ., NY Slip Op 06026 (2d Dep't November 22, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Common-law indemnification.

The principle of common-law, or implied, indemnification permits one who has been compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages it paid to the injured party. Evidence of a party's authority to supervise or direct work, without more, is insufficient to impose liability upon that party under a theory of common-law indemnification.

Chapa v. Bayles Props., Inc., NY Slip Op 06025 (2d Dep't November 22, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

Defendants' arguments as to why a mistrial should have been declared as to the jury's liability and compensatory damages determinations are not properly before the Appellate Division. In their motion papers before Supreme Court, defendants expressly limited their motion to events and issues that arose after the first phase of the trial had concluded. However, defendants' brief on appeal focus on matters that either arose during the trial or have been addressed in motion practice that also is not at issue on this appeal.

Rosenthal v. Sperling, NY Slip Op 05996 (1st Dep't November 21, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Failure to oppose a motion.

A party seeking to vacate a default in opposing a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion. The excuse of law office failure may be deemed reasonable. 

V.C. v. Fly High Indoor Trampoline Park, Inc., NY Slip Op 06024 (2d Dep't November 22, 2023)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

A pre-answer motion to dismiss may properly be denied where "facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated," pursuant to CPLR 3211 [d].

Ark 357 Doe v. Jesuit Fathers and Bros., NY Slip Op 05975 (1st Dep't November 21, 2023)

Here is the decision.