Court holiday.

Specific jurisction.

A New York court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a foreign defendant pursuant to CPLR 302, which is New York's long-arm statute. CPLR 302(a)(1) provides that "a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . . transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state[.]" This jurisdictional inquiry is twofold: under the first prong the defendant must have conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in New York, and under the second prong, the claims must arise from the transactions. In order to satisfy the second prong, the statute requires an articulable nexus or substantial relationship between the cause of action sued upon, or an element thereof, and the defendants' business transactions in New York.  The inquiry is relatively permissive, and does not require causation. There must at least be a relatedness between the transaction and the legal claim such that the latter is not completely unmoored from the former, regardless of the ultimate merits of the claim. Therefore, under CPLR 302(a)(1), jurisdiction is proper even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant's activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim pled. Where this necessary relatedness is lacking, the claim as too attenuated  from the transaction, or merely coincidental with it.

Aybar v. US Tires & Wheels of Queens, LLC, NY Slip Op 06099 (2d Dep't November 2, 2022)

Here is the decision.

A motion for jurisdictional discovery.

The motion will be denied in the absence of tangible evidence constituting a "sufficient start" to a showing that jurisdiction could exist against the defendant. 

Taxi Tours Inc. v. Go N.Y. Tours, Inc., NY Slip Op 06186 (1st Dep't November 3, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

In this action arising from an auto accident, the defendant-driver and owner ask the Appellate Division to search the record and grant them summary judgment. However, they failed to raise this issue or seek this relief before the motion court, and the Appellate Division declines to grant that relief.

Betances v. DJB Intl. Ltd, NY Slip Op 06160 (1st Dep't November 3, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Collateral estoppel.

Collateral estoppel, otherwise known as issue preclusion, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue that was clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party regardless of whether the court or the causes of action are the same. The party invoking estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination, and the party seeking to defeat its application has the burden of establishing the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action.

9th St., LLC v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., NY Slip Op 06097 (2d Dep't November 2, 2022)

Here is the decision.

The limitations period in a mortgage foreclosure action.

The statute of limitations began to run on November 20, 2009, upon the prior mortgagee's commencement of the initial foreclosure action and acceleration of the loan. However, plaintiff, who is the assignee of the mortgage, clearly and validly revoked the acceleration of the loan on November 19, 2015, when it sent a letter informing the mortgagor that the loan was "hereby de-accelerated" and that "immediate payment of all sums owed is hereby withdrawn and the Loan is re-instituted as an installment loan." As the action was commenced within six years of the de-acceleration of the loan, the action  is timely, pursuant to CPLR 213(4). The affirmative defense is dismissed.

21st Mtge. Corp. v. Jin Lin, NY Slip Op 06076 (1st Dep't November 1, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Waiver of a jurisdictional objection.

An objection that the summons and complaint was not properly served is waived if, after raising the objection in a pleading, the defendant does not move for judgment on that ground within sixty days after serving the pleading, unless the court extends the time upon the ground of undue hardship, pursuant to CPLR 3211[e].

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Shurko, NY Slip Op 05975 (2d Dep't October 26, 2022)

Here is the decision.

An action to quiet title.

In order to obtain summary judgment in an action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15, the movant must establish, prima facie, that it holds title, or that the nonmovant's title claim is without merit.

702 DeKalb Residence, LLC v. SSLiberty, Inc., NY Slip Op 05971 (2d Dep't October 26, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Equitable estoppel.

The doctrine of equitable estoppel is not applicable where the defendants did not act in a wrongful or negligent manner or engage in any affirmative misconduct upon which plaintiff reasonably relied.

Cruz v. Ajim, NY Slip Op 06062 (1st Dep't October 27, 2022)

Here is the decision.

An action to foreclose a mortgage.

The action is governed by a six-year statute of limitations, pursuant to CPLR 213[4]. Even if the mortgage is payable in installments, once the debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the statute of limitations begins to run on the entire debt. The commencement of the action accelerates the debt. The lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the foreclosure action.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Conforti, NY Slip Op 05973 (2d Dep't October 26, 2022)

Here is the decision.

A purported gift of shares in a cooperative apartment.

Plaintiff argues that his deceased brother, who was the sole proprietary lessee of a cooperative apartment  made an inter vivos gift of the apartment to plaintiff.  However, there was no valid inter vivos gift, as the statute of frauds applies to the sale of stock in a housing cooperative and there was no writing to effect the transfer.  Plaintiff's claim further fails as a matter of law, as the decedent failed to follow the transfer provisions of the proprietary lease, which requires a written assignment of shares signed by the shareholder and the approval of defendant's board of directors to make a valid transfer of the shares to the apartment within the decedent's lifetime.

Rivera v. 98-100 Ave. C Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., NY Slip Op 06074 (1st Dep't October 27, 2022)

Here is the decision.