Legal malpractice.

In order to sustain a cause of action for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must show that the defendant failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorney's breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. An attorney's conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff's damages if but for the attorney's negligence the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action. or would not have sustained 'actual and ascertainable damages. A defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing a legal malpractice cause of action has the burden of establishing that he did not fail to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, or that the claimed departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff to sustain damages.

D'Angelo v. Kujawski, NY Slip Op 05200 (2d Dep't October 23, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Discovery.

CPLR 3101(a) provides that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution . . . of an action." The phrase "material and necessary" should be interpreted liberally, and the test is one of usefulness and reason. It is incumbent on the party seeking disclosure to demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims, and unsubstantiated bare allegations of relevancy are insufficient to establish the factual predicate regarding relevancy. The supervision of discovery and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure are within the sound discretion of the trial court.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the subject branch of the plaintiff's prior motion to the extent of directing the defendants to produce documents related to all gap-related studies, reports, accidents, and/or injuries occurring anywhere within the New York City subway system for three years prior to the date of the accident at issue. The plaintiff established that access to these documents may yield information material and necessary to the prosecution of the action, including information related to the defendants' notice of the alleged dangerous condition that caused her accident and their duty to the plaintiff.

Chacon v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 05199 (2d Dep't October 23, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only if the documentary evidence submitted by the moving party utterly refutes the factual allegations and conclusively establishes a defense to the claims as a matter of law. Judicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case. In order to be considered documentary, the evidence must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity. Letters, emails, and affidavits are not documentary evidence. An affidavit is not documentary evidence because its contents can be controverted by other evidence, such as another affidavit.

Cajahuanca v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 05198 (2d Dep't October 23, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Motions to renew.

The Appellate Division determined that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's renewal motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][2].  Petitioner failed to support its application with new facts or information which could not have been readily and with due diligence made part of the original motion, and the court properly concluded that petitioner's submissions would not change its prior determination.

Matter of Barons Media, LLC v. Shapiro Legal Group, PLLC, NY Slip Op 05301 (1st Dep't October 24, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

Buyer made a prima facie showing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on seller's claim for reformation of the parties' real estate purchase and sale agreement based on a theory of either mutual mistake or a scrivener's error. Reformation based upon a scrivener's error requires proof of a prior agreement which, when subsequently reduced to writing, fails to accurately reflect the prior agreement. Here, there is no evidence of a prior oral agreement inconsistent with the written documents. Indeed, seller's representative testified that there was no oral agreement. Moreover, the real estate transfer documents, as well as the contract, all of which were prepared by seller's counsel, repeatedly and consistently included the description, by address, metes and bounds, and block and lot number, of the vacant lot that is the subject of the reformation action. This is inconsistent with a claim that the inclusion of the vacant lot was an inadvertent or isolated scrivener's error.

A claim for reformation based on mutual mistake must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the agreement did not accurately express the parties' intention. A mutual mistake must exist at the time the agreement is signed. The evidence offered by seller - that a year before the closing, the parties did not intend to include the vacant lot in the transaction - substantially predated the parties' final agreements. Both buyer and its counsel affirmed that, by the time of the closing, the vacant lot was included in the sale. Their understanding was supported by the deed, which included the vacant lot, other closing documents drafted by the seller, and the fact that the vacant lot and the two adjoining properties included in the purchase were all subject to the same regulatory agreement with the City of New York. Furthermore, after the closing, buyer, not seller, paid all the carrying costs of the property, including taxes. In addition, seller waited three years to seek reformation, which is persuasive evidence of the agreed intention of the parties.

ACP Hous. Assoc., L.P. v. ABJ Milano, LLC, NY Slip Op 05272 (1st Dep't October 24, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Service on a foreign corporation.

Pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1), service upon a foreign corporation shall be made by delivering the summons "to an officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service."  In addition, service may be made upon someone whom the corporation cloaks with authority. The burden of proving that personal jurisdiction has been acquired over a defendant rests with the plaintiff. The court does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant when a plaintiff fails to properly effectuate service of process. In those instances in which process has not been served upon a defendant, all subsequent proceedings will be rendered null and void.

Bold Broadcasting, LLC v. Wawaloam Reservation, Inc., NY Slip Op 05196 (2d Dep't October 23, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Standing in a mortgage foreclosure action.

The subject note, and the allonges attached to each note, which were dated and specifically endorsed to each respective assignee, were sufficient to establish plaintiff's standing to foreclose.

Defendants, in turn, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to standing. Uniform Commercial Code § 3-202(2) provides that "[a]n endorsement must be written by or on behalf of the holder on the instrument or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof." Contrary to defendants' contention, counsel's sworn affidavit of regularity, in which he averred that upon receipt of the original trust file, the file contained the original note and mortgage, that the original allonges were stapled to the original note, and the original trust file containing the original note and mortgage remained in counsel's possession and would be provided upon request, was sufficient to meet this burden.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Mave Hotel Invs. LLC, NY Slip Op 05195 (1st Dep't October 22, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Accelerated judgment.

CPLR 3213 provides a means of obtaining an accelerated judgment where a defendant's liability is premised upon an instrument for the payment of money only, such as an unconditional guaranty. In order to recover on a guaranty, a plaintiff must establish that payment on the underlying debt was due.  A defendant can defeat a CPLR 3213 motion by offering evidentiary proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Averments merely stating conclusions of fact or law are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Whitestone Plaza, LLC v. You Lin Shen, NY Slip Op 05129 (2d Dep't October 16, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

The individual defendant - a partner of the defendant law firm - was properly served, and, thus, the law firm was properly served. While the process server did not reach the individual defendant's actual place of business, pursuant to CPLR 308[2], because the building where defendants are located did not allow the process server to go to the defendant firm's floor, the building's concierge told the process server to deliver the summons to the "Building Mailroom Clerk." Under these circumstances the outer bounds of the individual defendant's actual place of business is deemed to extend to the location at which the process server was stopped.

Nath v. Chemtob Moss Forman & Beyda, LLP, NY Slip 05061 (1st Dep't October 15, 2024)

Here is the decision.

The admissibility of business records.

Although the foundation for admission of a business record usually is provided by the testimony of the custodian, the author, or some other witness familiar with the practices and procedures of the particular business, it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted. Without the introduction of the records themselves, a witness's testimony as to the contents of the records is inadmissible hearsay.

Bank of N.Y. v. Levy, NY Slip Op 05085 (2d Dep't October 16, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

Defendant's appeal is based on the issue of standing. While that defense is contained in her answer, defendant did not raise the issue in any of the numerous dispositive motions that she made in Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Appellate Division declines to reach the issue for the first time on appeal.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Stewart, NY Slip Op 05150 (1st Dep't October 17, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Quasi-contractual claims.

Because the subject matter of the loan at issue and the terms of its repayment are governed by a promissory note - a written agreement whose validity and enforceability is not in dispute - quasi-contractual claims based on the same subject matter will not lie, even against a nonparty to the promissory note.

A.N.L.Y.H. Invs. LP v. JDS Principal Highline LLC, NY Slip Op 05133 (1st Dep't October 17, 2024)

Here is the decision.

A motion to preclude witnesses at trial.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding seven witnesses listed on plaintiff's witness list from testifying at trial. Plaintiff exhibited a lack of diligence and noncompliance with court orders requiring him to respond to discovery demands, including interrogatories asking him to identify witnesses. Further, plaintiff did not provide a reasonable explanation for his failure to disclose those witnesses earlier in this 10-year-old litigation.

Gerasimowicz  v. Delis, NY Slip Op 05050 (1st Dep't October 15, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(1), a dismissal is warranted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law. On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint is to be afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory. Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal shall not be granted. On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) based on the statute of frauds, the court is required to accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true and accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference.

374-76 Prospect Place Tenants Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 05082 (2d Dep't October 16, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Vacating a default.

Defendants' motion to vacate the default judgment is granted in the interest of justice. Although defendants have a history of defaults and delays, many were readily excusable and the motion court was entitled, in its discretion, to accept their proffered excuse of law office failure, especially considering the stipulation to adjourn the motion for a default judgment. In affirming, the Appellate Division noted the policy of deciding actions on the merits, the existence of potentially meritorious defenses, the extreme prejudice to defendants if vacatur is denied, the comparatively lesser prejudice to be suffered by plaintiff if the default is vacated, and the court's efforts to mitigate such prejudice by awarding plaintiff a trial preference and monetary sanctions, pursuant to CPLR 2005.

Walton v. Perez, NY Slip Op 05081 (1st Dep't October 15, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal by the court.

A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met. Here, the Supreme Court failed to serve a written demand upon the plaintiff to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days of receipt of the demand, pursuant to CPLR 3216[b][3]. Since at least one precondition set forth in CPLR 3216 was not met, the court was without power to direct dismissal of the complaint pursuant to that statute.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, a court has discretion to dismiss an action where a plaintiff fails to appear at any scheduled call of a calendar or at any conference. In this case, however, the court attorney referee did not recommend dismissal of the complaint based upon a failure to appear at a conference, but, rather, for failure to move for an order of reference by a date certain without good cause shown. Thus, the dismissal order, which confirmed the report of the court attorney referee, did not direct dismissal of the complaint based upon a default in appearing at a scheduled conference or calendar call, and 22 NYCRR 202.27 could not have provided the basis for dismissal of the complaint.

In addition, a court's power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances warrant dismissal. Here, the plaintiff's failure to comply with a court conference order directing the plaintiff to move for an order of reference was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the complaint.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Banu, NY Slip Op 04940 (2d Dep't October 9, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

Plaintiff's motion for sanctions was granted on default and, as such, was non-appealable, pursuant to CPLR 5511. Defendant's one-page email to plaintiff's counsel discussing various housekeeping issues, with a mention of the pending discovery dispute, which was never filed, did not constitute opposition to the motion for sanctions. In addition, it did it comply with the court's order to respond to the motion.

LW Holdco V, LLC v. Puls, NY Slip Op 05026 (1st Dep't October 10, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Court holiday.

Contract law.

In order to invoke the doctrine of frustration of purpose, the frustrated purpose must be so completely the basis of the contract that, as both parties understood, without it, the transaction would have made little sense. Frustration of purpose is found where there is a change in circumstances making one party's performance virtually worthless to the other, thus frustrating that party's purpose in making the contract. A contractual party cannot rely on the failure of another to perform a condition precedent where that party has frustrated or prevented the occurrence of the condition.

Matter of Fein v. Langer, NY Slip Op 04906 (1st Dep't October 8, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Extensions of time to answer.

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to extend the time to answer a complaint requires the movant to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its delay and a potentially meritorious defense to the claims to which it is responding. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. In making that discretionary determination, the court should consider relevant 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.

209 Barbey St. Trust v. Scotland, NY Slip Op 04938 (2d Dep't October 9, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Spoliation.

On a motion for spoliation sanctions involving the destruction of electronic evidence, the party seeking sanctions must establish that: (1) the party with control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) the records were destroyed with a culpable state of mind;  and (3) the destroyed evidence was relevant to the moving party's claim or defense.

Here, Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions against plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff's majority shareholder had deliberately deleted relevant emails. At a hearing, defendant showed that the shareholder had deleted the emails after June 7, 2022, the date on which plaintiff had sent a prelitigation notice of default and demand for payment, threatening imminent litigation. The evidence at the hearing further showed that the emails were permanently removed from the hard drive by taking affirmative steps to delete them from the deleted items folder or recycle bin. This evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that the emails were deleted deliberately.

Coney Is. Auto Holdings, Corp. v. Parts Auth., LLC, NY Slip Op 04900 (1st Dep't October 8, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Discovery sanctions.

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, a court may impose discovery sanctions, including the striking of a pleading or preclusion of evidence, where a party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed. The nature and degree of the penalty is a matter within the discretion of the motion court.  However, the Appellate Division is vested with its own discretion and corresponding power to substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court, even in the absence of abuse.

Public policy strongly favors the resolution of actions on the merits whenever possible.  Thus, before a court invokes the remedy of precluding evidence, there must be a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery was willful and contumacious. The willful or contumacious character of a party's conduct can be inferred from the party's repeated failure to respond to demands or to comply with discovery orders, and the absence of any reasonable excuse for its failures.

Gibson v. Delemos, NY Slip Op 04761 (2d Dep't October 2, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Rescission.

A unilateral mistake can be the basis for rescission if failing to rescind would result in unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other, and the parties can be returned to the status quo ante without prejudice.

Gaetano v. 1210 Troy Schenectady Rd., LLC, NY Slip Op 04760 (2d Dep't October 2, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Adding a party.

Pursuant to CPLR 1003, "[p]arties may be added at any stage of [an] action by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties who have appeared." CPLR 3025(b) provides that "[a] party may amend [its] pleading . . . at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties." A plaintiff's failure to comply with CPLR 1003 when attempting to add a new defendant is a jurisdictional defect, and an amended complaint that is not filed in accordance with CPLR 1003 and 3025 is a legal nullity.

Braylovskaya v. Skazka Rest., NY Slip Op 04756 (2d Dep't October 2, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Suing the Housing Authority.

Service of a notice of claim within 90 days after accrual of the claim is a condition precedent to commencing an action against NYCHA. Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), upon application, the Supreme Court, in its discretion, may extend the time to serve a notice of claim upon a public corporation as required by General Municipal Law § 50-e(1).

In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether: (1) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter; (2) the injured child was an infant at the time the claim arose, and, if so, whether there was a nexus between the infancy and the failure to serve a timely notice of claim; (3) the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim; and (4) the public corporation was substantially prejudiced by the delay in its ability to maintain a defense on the merits. No single factor is determinative, although it is generally recognized that the question of whether the public corporation timely acquired actual knowledge is of great importance. 

In order to have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, the public corporation must have knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory on which liability is predicated in the notice of claim; the public corporation need not have specific notice of the theory. Here, the record did not demonstrate that NYCHA acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim that the infant plaintiff sustained personal injuries as a result of NYCHA's negligence. Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim. 

J.B. v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 04755 (2d Dep't October 2, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Indemnification.

A finding of negligence nullifies any common-law indemnity claim.

Ace Am. Ins. Co. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., NY Slip Op 04800 (1st Dep't October 3, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment motions.

The non-movant's mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to warrant denial of the motion.

Carmona v. Preston, NY Slip Op 04757 (2d Dep't October 2, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

To the extent that plaintiff seeks affirmative relief, such as sanctions and striking of defendants' answer, in his opposition to defendants' motion to compel, the Appellate Division declines to grant that relief, as plaintiff did not cross-move for it before the motion court.  Similarly, the Appellate Division declines plaintiff's request to vacate prior orders, as plaintiff did not take an appeal from them.

Schwartz v. Mount Sinai Hosp., NY Slip Op 04750 (1st Dep't October 4, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

In order to prevail on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the movant's evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law. Contracts and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence. 

When reviewing a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory. 

Plymouth Capital, LLC v. Montage Fin. Group, Inc., NY Slip Op 04583 (2d Dep't September 25, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Account stated.

An account stated claim is an account balanced and rendered, with an assent to the balance, express or implied, so that the demand is essentially the same as if a promissory note had been given for the balance. A defendant's receipt and retention of invoices seeking payment for goods or services rendered, without objection within a reasonable time, gives rise to an actionable claim.

TH Fashion Ltd. v. Vince Holding Corp., NY Slip Op 04630 (1st Dep't September 26, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Arbitration.

While American Arbitration Association rules delegate to the arbitrator the issue of whether a particular dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, it is for the courts to determine, in the first instance, whether the parties have entered into a binding agreement to arbitrate.

Matter of Whythe Berry, LLC v. Goldman, NY Slip Op 04632 (1st Dep't September 26, 2024)

Here is the decision.