CPLR 213[4].

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Where the mortgage is payable in installments, a separate cause of action accrues for each unpaid installment, and the limitations period begins on the due-date of each installment.  If a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the limitations period begins on the entire debt. A lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act during the six-year limitations period subsequent to the commencement of the prior foreclosure action.

Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Dawson, NY Slip Op 05583 (2d Dep't July 10, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Judiciary Law § 470.

A non-resident attorney's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of maintaining a physical office in New York State at the time a complaint is filed does not render the filing a nullity, and dismissal of the action is not required. The party may cure the statutory violation with the appearance of compliant counsel or an application for admission pro hac vice by appropriate counsel.

Marina Dist. Dev. Co., LLC v. Toledano, NY Slip Op 05480 (2d Dep't July 9, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 2005.

While the statute allows courts to excuse a default due to law office failure, it was not the Legislature's intent to routinely excuse such defaults, and mere neglect is not accepted as a reasonable excuse.  A claim of law office failure must be supported by detailed allegations of fact explaining the failure," and vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated excuses are unacceptable.

Wright v. Brooklyn Renaissance Funding Co., LLC, NY Slip Op 05584 (2d Dep't July 10, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 5015[a][1].

A party seeking to vacate a judgment based on excusable default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense. The preference for deciding cases on the merits does not justify vacating the default judgment where the moving party fails to satisfy the two-prong test.

Leader v. Parkside Group, NY Slip Op 05467 (1st Dep't July 9, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 214(4).

The statute of limitations for tortious interference with contract and with prospective business relations is three years from the date when the plaintiff first sustains damages. Here, the causes of action accrued on the date when the complaint alleges that plaintiff was terminated from his engagement with a nonparty.

Bandler v. DeYonker, NY Slip Op 05633 (1st Dep't July 11, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment and discovery.

Plaintiff's argument that summary judgment should be denied because of a need for further discovery is unavailing since plaintiff only makes conclusory claims that unspecified evidence may be uncovered. While defendants moved for summary judgment just after the issue had been joined, depositions had been taken of all witnesses to the allegedly defamatory statements.

Thome v. Alexander and Louisa Calder Found., NY Slip Op 05625 (1st Dep't July 11, 2019)

Here is the decision.

An insufficient opposition to summary judgment.

In this personal injury action, the property owner-defendants' affidavits were insufficient to show, prima facie, that they did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.  The affidavits were conclusory, did not identify the source of their conclusions regarding the corporate relationships and responsibilities, did not refer to or include any supporting documentation or files, did not state that they were based upon personal knowledge, and failed to supply authenticated copies of the relevant leases or contracts.

Andriienko v. Compass Group USA, Inc., NY Slip Op 05506 (2d Dep't July 10, 2019)

Here is the decision.

The continuous representation doctrine.

The doctrine does not save an otherwise time-barred malpractice claim where the defendant-attorney was retained under two separately executed agreements.

Etzion v Blank Rome, LLP, NY Slip Op 05468(1st Dep't July 9, 2019)

Here is the decision.

The advocate-witness rules.

The rules, as stated in 22 NYCRR 1200.0, provide guidance, but they are not binding authority in determining whether a party's attorney should be disqualified during litigation. Pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a), "[a] lawyer shall not act as advocate before a tribunal in a matter in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness on a significant issue of fact."  At 3.7[a][3], there is an exception when "disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client." In addition, the rule generally does not apply where the attorney is a litigant.  However, estate representatives represent the interests of the estate's beneficiaries, rather than their own, and so the advocate-witness rule will prevail over a fiduciary-attorney's right to self-representation.

Greenberg v. Grace Plaza Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., NY Slip Op 05390 (2d Dep't July 3, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 7513.

Arbitrators are not permitted to award attorneys' fees, with three limited exceptions: (1) where a statute provides for the award; (2) where the award is authorized by an express provision in the agreement;  (3) where it is unmistakably clear that the parties intended the award.

Steyn v. CRTV, LLC, NY Slip Op 05341 (1st Dep't July 2, 2019)

Here is the decision.

A motion to compel arbitration.

Defendants' motion was denied because plaintiff was not a party to the agreement containing the arbitration clause, and, a separate agreement required that plaintiff's claims be litigated in New York.

BML Props. Ltd. v. China Constr. Am. Inc.,NY Slip Op 05339 (1st Dep't July 2, 2019)

Here is the decision.