Motions to dismiss.

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), a court has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed based upon another pending action where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same.

Busiello v. Whelan, NY Slip Op 04226 (2d Dep't July 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Vacating a default.

A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering or appearing pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default in answering the complaint or appearing in the action. The conclusory and unsubstantiated claim that he was hampered by the restrictions imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic does not amount to a reasonable excuse. Further, he failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay in moving to vacate the judgment. Since the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the default, it is unnecessary to determine whether he demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action.

Asian Holdings Corp. v. Schiff, NY Slip Op 04225 (2d Dep't July 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Real estate commissions.

In order to prevail on a cause of action to recover a commission, the broker must establish (1) that it is duly licensed, (2) that it had a contract, express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying the commission, and (3) that it was the procuring cause of the sale. However, there is a distinction between brokerage agreements granting an exclusive agency and those conferring an exclusive right to sell, the latter of which permits a broker to recover a commission even if it was not the procuring cause of the transaction.

Angelic Real Estate, LLC v. Aurora Props., LLC, NY Slip Op 04223 (2d Dep't July 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The matter of defense counsel's summation describing the plaintiff as inattentive and aggressive before the accident is unpreserved for appellate review. Plaintiff's counsel failed to object to these comments at trial, did not request a curative instruction, and did not move for a mistrial on this ground.

Abdenbi v. Walgreen Co., NY Slip Op 04222 (2d Dep't July 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Res judicata.

When a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy.

Yu Chan Li v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 04275 (2d Dep't July 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be effected by affixing the summons to the door of either the actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode within the state of the person to be served and by either mailing the summons to the person at his last known residence or by mailing the summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his actual place of business. Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where personal service under CPLR 308(1) and (2) cannot be made with due diligence. Due diligence is not defined by statute but it has been interpreted and applied to require a few visits on different occasions and at different times to the defendant's residence or place of business when the defendant could reasonably be expected to be found there.

PNMAC Mtge. Opportunity Fund Invs., LLC v. Noushad, NY Slip Op 04195 (2d Dep't July 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Guaranty Law.

The absolute and unconditional guaranty was separate and distinct from the underlying lease and, therefore, constituted an independent agreement that imposed on the defendant a direct and primary obligation of payment. New York courts have routinely upheld such guaranties.

Queens Syndicate Co. v. Daniarov, NY Slip Op 04196 (2d Dep't July 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motions to intervene.

On a timely motion, a party may intervene as of right in an action involving the disposition of property where the moving party may be adversely affected by the judgment, pursuant to CPLR 1012[a][3].  In determining whether the motion is timely, a court will consider the time between the proposed intervenor's knowledge of the basis for the motion and the making of the motion, and whether any delay in seeking intervention is prejudicial to a party.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Severe, NY Slip Op 04198 (2d Dep't July 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

90-day demands.

Where a defendant serves a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), the plaintiff must comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day demand period. Here, the plaintiff did neither. Therefore, in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the failure to timely abide by the 90-day demands, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3216[e].

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Moran, NY Slip Op 04199 (2d Dep't July 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Constructive trusts.

The elements of a constructive trust are a fiduciary or confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance on that promise, and unjust enrichment. The transfer element extends to instances where funds, time and effort were contributed in reliance on a promise to share in the result. A party with no actual prior interest in the property must show that an equitable interest developed through the expenditure of money, labor, and time in the property.

Angel v. Struvolich, NY Slip Op 04149 (2d Dep't July 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

Guaranty law.

Generally, a guaranty is an instrument that qualifies for relief pursuant to a motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint under CPLR 3213.  In order to meet its prima facie burden on the motion, a plaintiff must prove the existence of the guaranty, the underlying debt, and the guarantor's failure to perform under the guaranty.

Pearl Riv. Campus, LLC v. ReadyScrip, LLC, NY Slip Op 04101 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Collateral estoppel.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action and decided against that party or those in privity, regardless of whether the tribunals or causes of action are the same. The party seeking to invoke the doctrine has the burden to show the identity of the issues, while the party trying to avoid application of the doctrine must establish the lack of a full and fair opportunity to litigate. The doctrine is based on principles of fairness and the facts and practical realities of a particular litigation, rather than rigid rules. A court's dicta is not subject to the preclusive effect of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Quiogue Prop. Mgt., LLC v. Torres, NY Slip Op 04115 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Notices of pendency.

Since the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, that branch of the motion which was to cancel the notice of pendency is granted as well.

Bank v. Guzzetti, NY Slip Op 04116 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

Service of process under CPLR 308(2) requires that the summons be delivered within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant's "actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode," along with a mailing of the summons to the defendant's last known residence or actual place of business. Personal jurisdiction is not acquired absent compliance with both the delivery and mailing requirements of the statute.  At a hearing to determine the validity of service, the burden of proving personal jurisdiction is on the party asserting it, and that party must sustain that burden by a preponderance of the credible evidence. Credibility determinations rendered by the Supreme Court as to the witnesses who have testified are entitled to great deference on appeal.

Rhoe v. Reid, NY Slip Op 04117 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Rear-end collisions.

A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision.  A non-negligent explanation may include evidence of a mechanical failure, a sudden stop of the vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on wet pavement, or any other reasonable cause. 

Torres v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 04120 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Proximate cause.

Generally,  the proximate cause of an accident is for the jury to decide, but it may be decided as a matter of law where only one conclusion may be drawn from the facts. Liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes.

Brinkley v. STD Trucking Corp., NY Slip Op 04080 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025) 

Here is the decision.

Motion practice.

Where the defendant fails to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion court will not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition papers.

Acosta v. Shanahan Group, LLC, NY Slip Op 04077 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

The essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance under the contract, the defendant's breach of that contract, and resulting damages. In order to state a cause of action, the plaintiff's allegations must identify the provisions of the contract that were breached. Where the contract is before the court, its provisions establish the rights of the parties and prevail over conclusory allegations of the complaint.

7 Leaf Compounds, LLC v. Pearl Riv. Campus, LLC, NY Slip Op 04076 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Leave to amend.

Leave to amend a pleading should be granted where the amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit and the delay in seeking amendment does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party. 

7 Leaf Compounds, LLC v. Pearl Riv. Campus, LLC, NY Slip Op 04076 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

A party who seeks to appeal a sua sponte order should first move to vacate the order in order to create a suitable appellate record and afford counsel the opportunity to be heard on the issues, pursuant to CPLR 5701[a][3].

Klein v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 04147 (1st Dep't July 10, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Estoppel.

Equitable estoppel precludes a defendant from using the statute of limitations as a defense where it is the defendant's affirmative wrongdoing which produced the long delay between the accrual of the cause of action and the institution of the legal proceeding. Invoking the doctrine of equitable estoppel requires a showing that the defendant's actions prevented timely commencement of the suit

Robinson v. Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., NY Slip Op 04030 (2d Dep't July 2, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Restoring a case to the calendar.

Plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the active calendar is granted. The action was never formally dismissed, as no order was issued directing dismissal of the action under 22 NYCRR 202.27. Accordingly, restoring a case marked inactive is automatic, and plaintiff was not required to establish a reasonable excuse for failing to appear at the status conference.

Simon v. Bryski, NY Slip Op 04033 (2d Dep't July 2, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Foreclosure actions.

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations. When a mortgage is payable in installments, which is the typical practice, an acceleration of the entire amount due begins the running of the statute of limitation on the entire debt. One of the ways to accelerate a mortgage debt is through commencement of a foreclosure action in which the verified complaint includes an election to exercise the mortgagor's contractual right to accelerate under the terms of the note and mortgage. The fact of election should not be confused with the notice of the election. While the act evincing the noteholder's election must be sufficient to constitute notice to all third parties of such a choice, a borrower's lack of actual notice does not, as a matter of law, destroy the effect of the election. Put another way, the point at which a borrower has actual notice of an election to accelerate is not the operative event for purposes of determining when the statute of limitations begins to run. The dispositive question is whether the contractual election was effectively invoked.

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Avenue Basin Mgt., Inc., NY Slip Op 04039 (2d Dep't July 2, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Standing.

Only a trustee, as opposed to the trust, may file suit.

J. Carey Smith 2019 Irrevocable Trust v. 11 W. 12 Realty, LLC, NY Slip Op 04045 (1st Dep't July 3, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

A motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the claims at issue. In order to be credited, the evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable.

Arkin, Simon & Simon Partnership v. Rockaway Crossing, LLC, NY Slip Op 03990 (2d Dep't July 2, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Arbitration.

The court will not intervene where there is an arbitration clause in which the parties agree to rules under which the arbitrator decides arbitrability.

Ghatak v. McKinsey & Co., NY Slip Op 04044 (1st Dep't July 3, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Court holiday.

Contract law.

Expert witnesses may not opine as to the parties' legal obligations under a contract; that is an issue for the trial court to decide.

Ametek, Inc. v. Goldfarb, NY Slip Op 03966 (1st Dep't July 1, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

Pursuant to CPLR 2101(f), "[t]he party on whom a paper is served shall be deemed to have waived objection to any defect in form unless, within fifteen days after the receipt thereof, the party on whom the paper is served returns the paper to the party serving it with a statement of particular objections." 

Globalized Realty Group, LLC v. Crossroad Realty NY, LLC, NY Slip Op 03797 (2d Dep't June 25, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Bench trials.

A judgment from a non-jury trial should be set aside only where it is not supported by any fair interpretation of the evidence.

American Infertility of N.Y., P.C. v. Kushnir, NY Slip Op 03858 (1st Dep't June 26, 2025)

Here is the decision.