A claim for prima facie tort.

The elements of the cause of action are 1) the intentional infliction of harm, (2) resulting in special damages, (3) without excuse or justification, (4) by an act or series of acts which otherwise are legal.

Garendean Realty Owner, LLC v. Lang, NY Slip Op 06381 (2d Dep't August 28, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 5015[a][1].

In order to vacate a default in appearing for oral argument, a party must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the failure to appear and a potentially meritorious cause of action. The motion to vacate is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court.

Ackerman v. Berkowitz, NY Slip Op 06375 (2d Dep't August 28, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Civil Rights Law § 74.

The allegedly defamatory statements that summarize or restate the allegations in judicial filings in a case related to plaintiff are not actionable.

Napoli v. New York Post, NY Slip Op 06371 (1st Dep't August 27, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Expert testimony in a medical malpractice action.

The expert need not be licensed in New York. It is sufficient that the expert attests to familiarity with either the standard of care in the locality or to a minimum standard applicable locally, state-wide, or nationally.

M.C. v. Huntington Hosp., NY Slip Op 06186 (2d Dep't August 21, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 308(2).

Service on a natural person may be made "by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by . . . mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence." Jurisdiction is not acquired pursuant to the statute unless there is strict compliance with the two steps of delivery and mailing. The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process.

Aurora Loan Servs, LLC v. Revivo, NY Slip Op 06210 (2d Dep't August 21, 2019)

Here is the decision.

The limitations period on a foreclosure action.

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations, pursuant to CPLR 213[4]. Where the mortgage is payable in installments, there are separate causes of action for each installment accrued, and the limitations period begins to run on the due-date of each installment. The limitations period begins to run on the entire debt when the mortgagee or its predecessor elects to accelerate the mortgage. The notice of acceleration must be clear and unequivocal, and, once the debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the limitations period begins to run on the entire debt.

Ditech Fin., LLC v. Reiss, NY Slip Op 06209 (2d Dep't August 21, 2019

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment motions.

In opposing the motion, a plaintiff cannot raise for the first time a new or materially different theory of recovery from those pleaded in the complaint and the bill of particulars.

Anonymous v. Gleason, NY Slip Op 06207 (2d Dep't August 21, 2019)

Here is the decision.

General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(1).

An alleged oral agreement which by its terms cannot be performed within one year is unenforceable.

Martin Greenfield Clothiers, Ltd. v. Brooks Bros. Group, Inc.,  NY Slip Op 06225 (2d Dep't August 22, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3212(f).

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is not premature where the defendant fails to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that additional discovery may lead to relevant evidence, or that facts essential to opposing the motion are exclusively within the plaintiff's knowledge and control.

Rodriguez-Garcia v. Bobby's Bus Co., Inc., NY Slip Op 06221 (2d Dep't August 21, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 510(1).

The statute requires the movant's affirmative showing that the plaintiff's choice of venue is improper. Absent such a showing, the court may not pass upon the propriety of the choice of venue proposed by the defendant.

Lividini v. Goldstein, NY Slip Op 06150 (1st Dep't August 20, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 1021.

A motion for substitution must be made within a reasonable time. In deciding the reasonability of the timing, a court will consider the diligence of the party seeking substitution, the prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or the defense has potential merit.

Petion v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., NY Slip Op 06107 (2d Dep't August 7, 2019)

Here is the decision.