Default in a mortgage foreclosure action.

CPLR 3215(c) requires a plaintiff to move for a default judgment within a year of the defendant's default in answering or appearing. In a mortgage foreclosure action, the statutory requirements are satisfied by moving for an order of reference within a year of the default. The plaintiff's failure to make the motion requires dismissal of the action, either upon motion or sua sponte, except where sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed. Sufficient cause requires a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving for a default judgment and a potentially meritorious cause of action.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Nunez, NY Slip Op 00515 (1st Dep't January 28, 2021)

Here is the decision.

A legal malpractice claim.

The claim is dismissed, as plaintiffs' allegations consist solely of purported violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which, standing alone, do not support a malpractice claim.

Volpe v. Munoz & Assoc., LLC, NY Slip Op 00516 (1st Dep't January 28, 2021)

Here is the decision.

General jurisdiction over a corporation.

A corporate defendant's registration to do business in New York, and the designation of the Secretary of State to accept service of process, does not constitute the corporation's consent to submit to the general jurisdiction of New York for causes of action that are unrelated to the corporation's affiliations with New York.

Weik v. LSG Sky Chefs N. Am. Solutions, Inc., NY Slip Op 00517 (January 28, 2021)

Here is the decision.

The notice requirement in a foreclosure action.

The Appellate Division reversed, with costs, the Order which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its foreclosure complaint, and, upon a search of the record, granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, without prejudice. Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie its strict compliance with the notice requirement of RPAPL 1304. The copy of the certified mail receipt it submitted is undated and blank in other parts, and shows the signature of someone other than defendant. The copy of the pre-paid first-class mail envelope has no recipient's name or address on it. Further, the affidavits plaintiff submitted do not demonstrate the loan servicer's employees' familiarity with the mailing practices and procedures of the servicer that had mailed the 90-day notices and the notice of default.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Calhoun, NY Slip Op 00398 (1st Dep't January 26, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Partnerships.

The partnership itself may sue and be sued, pursuant to CPLR 1025.

149-51 Sullivan St. Co. v. Lopez, NY Slip Op 00381 (1st Dep't January 26, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Venue.

A written agreement fixing the place of trial, made before an action is commenced, shall be enforced upon a motion for change of venue, pursuant to CPLR 501 and 511 A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court.

Andreryeva v. Haym Solomon Home for the Aged, LLC, NY Slip Op 00281 (2d Dep't January 21, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Medical malpractice claims.

In order to establish the physician's liability, a plaintiff must prove that the physician deviated or departed from accepted community standards of practice, and that the departure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. In seeking summary judgment, the defendant must make a prima facie showing either that there was no departure from the accepted standard of care, or that any departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Where the defendant has satisfied that burden, the plaintiff must submit evidentiary facts or materials to rebut the defendant's prima facie showing. Summary judgment is not appropriate where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions. 

Agostini v. Varughese, NY Slip Op 00280 (2d Dep't January 20, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Civil contempt.

In order to find contempt, it must be determined that the court's lawful order, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was disobeyed. Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the order. Finally, there must be a showing of prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753[A]. The burden of proof is on the proponent of the contempt motion, and the contempt must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

Abizadeh v. Abizadeh, NY Slip Op 00279 (2d Dep't January 20, 2021)

Here is the decision.

The standard for dismissal.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory. Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on the motion, and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question is whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one. Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the motion will be denied unless documentary evidence conclusively establishes, as a matter of law, a defense to the asserted claims.

68 16th Realty, LLC v. Bank of N.Y., NY Slip Op 00278 (2d Dep't January 20, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

Defendant's failure to consolidate her legal malpractice action, which she commenced subsequent to this legal fees action, precludes review of whether her claim is sufficiently intertwined with the account stated cause of action.

Law Off. of Mark S. Helweil v. Karambelas, NY Slip Op 00260 (1st Dep't January 19, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Alleged negligence in responding to a 911 call.

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Order which denied the City defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, granting defendants' motion and denying plaintiff's motion. Neither the notice of claim nor the complaint alleges  facts that demonstrate the special relationship between plaintiff and the City defendants required for liability on the ground that they were negligent in handling plaintiff's 911 call. The proposed amended complaint does not remedy the pleading's deficiencies. Its factual allegations and plaintiff's affidavit that his mother-in-law told him she had called 911 and that the fire department was on its way conflict with plaintiff's § 50-h hearing testimony that he had no memory of the fire and did not know what had happened until he awoke in the hospital.

Velez v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 00277 (1st Dep't January 19, 2021)

Here is the decision.