Good faith and fair dealing.

The implied covenant of good faith is a limited one, as courts will find an obligation of good faith only in aid and furtherance of other terms of the agreement. A party who asserts the claim bears a heavy burden of showing not merely that it would have been better or more sensible to include such a covenant within the terms of the agreement, but, rather, that the particular unexpressed promise sought to be enforced is in fact implicit in the agreement viewed as a whole.

DirecTV, LLC v. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., NY Slip Op 04225 (1st Dep't August 15, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Statute of limitations.

On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the ground of the statute of limitations, the defendant must establish, prima facie, that the time in which to commence the action has expired. If the showing is made, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations is tolled or is otherwise inapplicable.

An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations, pursuant to CPLR 213[4].

Comito v. Z & N Enters. Corp., NY Slip Op 04124 (2d Dep't August 7, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

Service of process upon a natural person must be made in strict compliance with the statutory methods of service set forth in CPLR 308. A process server's affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service and, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service. Although a defendant's sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by a process server's affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing, no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavits. A mere conclusory denial of service is insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service arising from the process server's affidavit. Minor discrepancies between the appearance of the person allegedly served and the description of the person served in the affidavit of service are insufficient to raise an issue of fact warranting a hearing.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Cardali, NY Slip Op 04123 (2d Dep't August 7, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment.

Successive summary judgment motions are improper in the absence of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause.

Perretta v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 04184 (1st Dep't August 8, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Discretionary vacatur.

 CPLR 5015(a)(1) provides that the court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from that judgment or order on the ground of excusable default. However, a motion to vacate a judgment or order based on an excusable default must be made within one year after service thereof with notice of entry. Here, the defendant's motion to vacate the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale was made approximately 4½ years after the defendant was served with notice of entry of the order and judgment. As such, the motion was untimely.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Taylor, NY Slip Op 04119 (2d Dep't August 7, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Personal jurisdiction.

A defendant's appearance in an action is deemed to be the equivalent of personal service of a summons, and, in the absence of an objection to jurisdiction by way of a motion or answer, the appearance confers personal jurisdiction over that defendant. In addition to the formal appearances listed in CPLR 320(a), a defendant may appear informally by actively litigating the action before the court. Here, the defendant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by filing a notice of appearance and opposing the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference without simultaneously asserting an affirmative objection to jurisdiction.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Taylor, NY Slip Op 04119 (2d Dep't August 7, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Leave to reargue.

A motion for leave to reargue is directed to the trial court's discretion. In order to warrant reargument, the moving party must demonstrate that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied a controlling principle of law, pursuant to CPLR 2221[d].

AWR Group, Inc. v. 240 East Place Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., NY Slip Op 04118 (2d Dep't August 7, 2024)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3216.

CPLR 3216 is an extremely forgiving statute, which never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff's action based on the plaintiff's unreasonable neglect to proceed. While the statute prohibits the Supreme Court from dismissing an action based on neglect to proceed whenever the plaintiff has shown a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action,  such a dual showing is not strictly necessary in order for the plaintiff to escape dismissal.

Here, where discovery has been completed and there is no evidence that the defendants have been prejudiced by any delay, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint only to the extent of directing the plaintiff to file a note of issue on or before January 17, 2023, in order to avoid dismissal of the complaint.

Disla v. El Potrero Sport Bar, Inc., NY Slip Op 04060 (2d Dep't July 31, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment.

On a motion for summary judgment, the moving defendant does not establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by merely pointing to gaps in the plaintiff's case. The moving defendant must affirmatively demonstrate the merit of its claim or defense.

Cooper v. First In Queens, Inc., NY Slip Op 04059 (2d Dep't July 31, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Slips-and-falls.

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that it did not create the alleged dangerous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it. The defendant has constructive notice of a dangerous condition when it is visible and apparent and has existed for a sufficient length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it. In order to meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant is required to offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff slipped and fell.

Carmenati v. Sea Park E., L.P., NY Slip Op 05047 (2d Dep't July 31, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Adverse possession.

It is well-settled that a municipality cannot lose title through adverse possession to property which it owns in its governmental capacity, or which has been made inalienable by statute. Conversely, when a municipality holds real property in its proprietary capacity, there is no immunity against adverse possession.

Bronxville Scout Comm. v. County of Westchester, NY Slip Op 04055 (2d Dep't July 31, 2024)

Here is the decision.