theCPLRblog

CPLR R. 3025 Amend and Conform--Not Too Difficult

CPLR R. 3025 Amended and supplemental pleadings
(b) Amendments and supplemental pleadings by leave

Schuyler v Perry, 2009 NY Slip Op 06825 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting Perry's motion for leave to serve an amended answer, as the first proposed amended answer was palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit, insofar as the counterclaim contained therein was based on allegations of the plaintiff's active or primary negligence or the plaintiff's vicarious liability for DiMicco's conduct, and the second proposed amended answer was palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit, insofar as the counterclaim contained therein was based on allegations of the plaintiff's vicarious liability for DiMicco's conduct.

Moyse v Wagner, 2009 NY Slip Op 07808 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

Leave to amend a pleading "shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just" (CPLR 3025[b]; see Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959) as long as the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or devoid of merit (see Bolanowski v Trustees of Columbia Univ. In City of N.Y., 21 AD3d 340, 341; Glaser v County of Orange, 20 AD3d 506; Ortega v Bisogno & Meyerson, 2 AD3d 607, 609). Accordingly, in considering a motion for leave to amend, it is incumbent upon the court to examine the sufficiency and merits of the proposed amendment (see Hill v 2016 Realty Assoc., 42 AD3d 432, 433; see e.g. Abrahamian v Tak Chan, 33 AD3d 947, 949; Fisher v Braun, 227 AD2d 586, 587).

Matter of Simonds v Kirkland, 2009 NY Slip Op 08662 (App. Div., 4th, 2009)

The mother also will not be heard to contend that the court erred in permitting the amendment of the pleadings to conform to the evidence presented at the hearing on the petition, inasmuch as the record establishes that the mother's attorney consented to that amendment (see McLaughlin v City of New York, 294 AD2d 136; see also Atweh v Hashem, 284 AD2d 216, 217). In any event, "[t]he court has discretion to permit an amendment to conform the pleadings to the proof . . . [and i]t is an abuse of discretion to [withhold such permission] unless the opposing party can allege demonstrable and real surprise or prejudice" (General Elec. Co. v A. C. Towne Corp., 144 AD2d 1003, 1004, lv dismissed 73 NY2d 994; see CPLR 3025 [c]). Even assuming, arguendo, that the mother was in fact "an opposing party," we conclude that she failed to demonstrate that she sustained any "real surprise or prejudice" arising from the amendment (General Elec. Co., 144 AD2d at 1004).

The bold is mine.

CPLR R. 3025(b)

CPLR R. 3025 Amended and supplemental pleadings
(b) Amendments and supplemental pleadings by leave

Sanatass v Town of N. Hempstead, 2009 NY Slip Op 05955 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant Town of North Hempstead failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether it received prior written notice of the alleged defect (see Bonilla v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 49 AD3d 788, 789; Kramer v Town of Hempstead, 284 AD2d 503, 504). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the Town's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

"Leave to amend pleadings should be freely given provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit" (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d 901, 902; see Sheila Props., Inc. v A Real Good Plumber, Inc., 59 AD3d 424, 426; Boakye-Yiadom v Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 57 AD3d 929, 931). "A determination whether to grant such leave is within the Supreme Court's broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed" (Gitlin v Chirinkin, 60 AD3d at 902; see Ingrami v Rovner, 45 AD3d 806, 808). Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend her pleadings pursuant to CPLR 3025(b).

Trans-World Trading, Ltd. v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Plainview, 2009 NY Slip Op 05958 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The plaintiff commenced this action seeking, inter alia, damages for conversion against the Hospital. The cause of action to recover damages for conversion alleged that the goods allegedly converted were housed in the coffee shop. In May 2007 the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action against the Hospital alleging tortious interference with the plaintiff's contractual relations with the coffee shop. It also sought leave to amend the cause of action to recover damages for conversion against the Hospital to include, in addition to the goods housed in the coffee shop, goods that were purportedly stored in the Hospital basement.

A motion for leave to amend a complaint should be freely granted "unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, or where the delay in seeking the amendment would cause prejudice or surprise'" (Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Service Unlimited, USA, Inc., 50 AD3d 1085, 1085, quoting Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 222; see G.K. Alan Assoc. Inc. v Lazzari, 44 AD3d 95, 99, affd 10 NY3d 941). The Supreme Court [*2]providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend the cause of action to recover damages for conversion to include goods that were purportedly stored in the Hospital's basement. Although exposure to additional liability alone does not, in and of itself, amount to prejudice (see Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23; Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Service Unlimited, USA, Inc., 50 AD3d at 1085), in this case, the five-year delay in seeking the amendment based upon facts that the plaintiff had known since the inception of this action caused the Hospital surprise and prejudice. The plaintiff's claim that the Hospital converted a few hundred boxes of goods stored in its basement was not discernible from the complaint. Thus, for more than five years, the Hospital proceeded on the premise that the merchandise underlying the conversion claim was housed inside the coffee shop (see Morris v Queens Long Is. Med. Group, P.C., 49 AD3d 827; cf. Schutz v Finkelstein Bruckman Wohl Most & Rothman, 247 AD2d 460, 461). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to present a reasonable excuse for the delay. In light of the prejudice, it is not necessary to address whether the proposed amendment was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see Morris v Queens Long Is. Med. Group, P.C., 49 AD3d at 829; G.K. Alan Assoc., Inc. v Lazzari, 44 AD3d at 99; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d at 222).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action against the Hospital alleging tortious interference with contract (see Scofield v DeGroodt, 54 AD3d 1017, 1018; Benyo v Sikorjak, 50 AD3d 1074, 1076; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d at 222; Beja v Meadowbrook Ford, 48 AD3d 495).

The bold is mine.

Bumpus (IMPORTANT): CPLR § 1024; § 306-b; § 3102; R. 3025; § 602; § 203

CPLR § 1024 Unknown parties

CPLR § 306-b. Service of the summons and complaint, summons with notice, third-party summons and complaint, or petition with a notice of petition or order to show cause 

CPLR § 3102 Method of obtaining disclosure
(c) Before action commenced

CPLR R. 3025 Amended and supplemental pleadings
(b) Amendments and supplemental pleadings by leave

CPLR § 602 Consolidation
(a) Generally

CPLR § 203 Method of computing periods of limitation generally
(f) Claim in amended pleading

I'm only posting the analysis on this one.  For the facts in their entirety, read the decision.  For a brief intro to the decision, click here.

Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 2009 NY Slip Op 05737 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

II. The Interplay of CPLR 1024 and 306-b

The New York State Legislature has recognized that there are circumstances where a party is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the identity of a person who should be made a party to an action. CPLR 1024 allows for the commencement of an action against an unknown party "by designating so much of his name and identity as is known" (see generally Orchard Park Cent. School Dist. v Orchard Park Teachers Assn., 50 AD2d 462, 467). To be effective, a summons and complaint must describe the unknown party in such a manner that the "Jane Doe" would understand that she is the intended defendant by a reading of the papers (see Olmsted v Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 28 AD3d 855, 856; Justin v Orshan, 14 AD3d 492; Lebowitz v Fieldston Travel Bur., 181 AD2d 481, 482).

The use of CPLR 1024 presents many pitfalls. One pitfall is that parties are not to resort to the "Jane Doe" procedure unless they exercise due diligence, prior to the running of the statute of limitations, to identify the defendant by name and, despite such efforts, are unable to do so (see Hall v Rao, 26 AD3d 694, 695; Justin v Orshan, 14 AD3d 492, 492-493; Opiela v May Indus. Corp., 10 AD3d 340, 341; Tucker v Lorieo, 291 AD2d 261; Porter v Kingsbrook OB/GYN Assoc., 209 AD2d 497). Any failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the "Jane Doe's" name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party (see Hall v Rao, 26 AD3d at 695; Justin v Orshan, 14 AD3d at 492-493; Opiela v May Indus. Corp., 10 AD3d at 341). A second requirement unique to CPLR 1024 is that the "Jane Doe" party be described in such form as will fairly apprise the party that she is the intended defendant (see City of Mount Vernon v Best Dev. Co., 268 NY 327, 331; Olmsted v Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 28 AD3d at 856; Justin v Orshan, 14 AD3d at 492-493). An insufficient description subjects the "Jane Doe" complaint to dismissal for being jurisdictionally defective (see Lebowitz v Fieldston Travel Bur., 181 AD2d 481, 482-483; Reid v Niagra Mach. & Tool Co., 170 AD2d 662). A third pitfall unique to CPLR 1024 is its interplay with CPLR 306-b.

Prior to 1992, when actions in the Supreme and County Courts were commenced by the service of process rather than by filing, a party suing a "Jane Doe" defendant was under no particular time deadline for ascertaining the unknown party's identity, other than commencing an action against all defendants prior to the expiration of the relevant statute of limitations (see Luckern [*3]v Lyondale Energy Ltd. Partnership, 229 AD2d 249, 255)^[FN1]. However, the enactment of CPLR 306-a in 1992 required that actions in Supreme and County Courts be commenced by filing rather than by service (L 1992, ch 216, § 6; see generally Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714, 718-720) and upon filing, CPLR 306-b, which was enacted at the same time as 306-a (L 1992, ch 216, § 7), superimposed the requirement that service of process be effected within 120 days (see CPLR 306-b; see generally Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 100-101). The filing of the summons with notice or summons and complaint fixed the point at which an action was commenced for statute of limitations purpose (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 100; Matter of Gershel v Porr, 89 NY2d 327, 330).

The enactment of CPLR 306-b placed plaintiffs wishing to commence actions against "Jane Doe" defendants in an unenviable position that did not previously exist. By virtue of CPLR 306-b, plaintiffs were required to ascertain the identity of unknown "Jane Doe" parties, and to serve process upon them, within 120 days from filing. As a practical matter, it is not always easy or even possible for plaintiffs naming "Jane Doe" defendants to meet the service expectations of CPLR 306-b. In any given case involving two or more defendants including an unknown party, a plaintiff may serve process upon the known defendants early in the 120-day service period, and then wait 20 or 30 days for appearances and answers (see CPLR 320[a]), absent consent extensions or pre-answer motions to dismiss the complaint (see CPLR 3211). Upon the joinder of issue, the plaintiff may then serve discovery demands upon the known parties or upon non-parties for information that may identify the unknown party, and wait for responses which may or may not be fruitful, complied with, or timely. The mechanics of serving process upon known parties, joining issue, demanding discovery, and receiving meaningful responses will, as a practical matter, exhaust, in many cases, all or most of the 120-day period of CPLR 306-b for effecting service upon the newly-identified party. If a "Jane Doe" is the only named defendant in an action, the timely identification of the party's true identity for service of process is even more challenging.

The harshness of CPLR 306-b under these circumstances is ameliorated, in appropriate instances, by the "good cause" and "interest of justice" exceptions to CPLR 306-b. These exceptions have particular utility in actions where, as here, a plaintiff is delayed in effecting service of process by virtue of not knowing the identity of a target defendant.

The 120-day service provision of CPLR 306-b can be extended by a court, upon motion, "upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice" (CPLR 306-b). "Good cause" and "interest of justice" are two separate and independent statutory standards (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 104). To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105-06). Good cause will not exist where a plaintiff fails to make any effort at service (see Valentin v Zaltsman, 39 AD3d 852; Lipschitz v McCann, 13 AD3d 417), or fails to make at least a reasonably diligent effort at service (see e.g. Kazimierski v New York Univ., 18 AD3d 820; Baione v Central Suffolk Hosp., 14 AD3d 635, 636-637; Busler v Corbett, 259 AD2d 13, 15). By contrast, good cause may be found to exist where the plaintiff's failure to timely serve process is a result of circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control (see U.S. 1 Brookville Real Estate Corp. v Spallone, 13 Misc 3d 1236[A], quoting Eastern Refractories Co., Inc. v Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 187 FRD 503, 505; see also Greco v Renegades, Inc., 307 AD2d 711, 712 [difficulties of service associated with locating defendant enlisted in military]; Kulpa v Jackson, 3 Misc 3d 227, 235 [difficulties associated with service abroad through the Hague Convention]).

If good cause for an extension is not established, courts must consider the "interest of justice" standard of CPLR 306-b (see e.g. Busler v Corbett, 259 AD2d at 17). The interest of justice standard does not require reasonably diligent efforts at service, but courts, in making their [*4]determinations, may consider the presence or absence of diligence, along with other factors (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105). The interest of justice standard is broader than the good cause standard (see Mead v Singleman, 24 AD3d 1142, 1144), as its factors also include the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a request by the plaintiff for an extension, and prejudice to the defendant (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105-106; Matter of Jordan v City of New York, 38 AD3d 336, 339; Estey-Dorsa v Chavez, 27 AD3d 277; Mead v Singleman, 24 AD3d at 1144; de Vries v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 11 AD3d 312, 313; Hafkin v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 279 AD2d 86, 90-91, affd 97 NY2d 95; see also Slate v Schiavone Const. Co., 4 NY3d 816).

The practicing bar need not rely exclusively on the ameliorative provisions of CPLR 306-b for coping with the difficulties posed by pursuing actions against unknown parties. There are, in fact, at least four procedural mechanisms that may be utilized which, if applicable and successful, would render unnecessary a party's reliance upon "good cause" or the "interest of justice" for additional time to serve process upon "Jane Doe" defendants who cannot be readily identified.

One such method is pre-action disclosure as permitted by CPLR 3102(c). The statute permits a prospective plaintiff to seek, by court order, disclosure that will aid in bringing the action (see CPLR 3102[c]). It has been recommended that a request for pre-action disclosure be sought by means of a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 4 (see Connors, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, CPLR C3102:4, quoting Robinson v Government of Malaysia, 174 Misc 2d 560). While pre-action disclosure is often thought of as a device to enable the plaintiff to frame a complaint (see generally Matter of Wien & Malkin v Wichman, 255 AD2d 244; Matter of Perez v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 84 AD2d 789; Matter of Rosenberg v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 80 AD2d 834; Matter of Urban v Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 75 AD2d 720; Matter of Roland, 10 AD2d 263, 265) or to preserve evidence for a forthcoming lawsuit (see generally Matter of Thomas v New York City Tr. Police Dept., 91 AD2d 898; Gearing v Kelly, 15 AD2d 477; Matter of O'Grady v City of New York, 164 Misc 2d 171, 173; Matter of Spraggins v Current Cab Corp., 127 Misc 2d 774, 775), it has also been recognized as an appropriate device for ascertaining the identities of prospective defendants (see Matter of Alexander v Spanierman Gallery, LLC, 33 AD3d 411; Matter of Toal v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 300 AD2d 592; Matter of Stewart v New York City Tr. Auth., 112 AD2d 939, 940; Perez v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 84 AD2d at 789; Matter of Bergan v Sullivan Bros. Wood Prods. of Keeseville, 77 AD2d 723; Matter of Roland, 10 AD2d at 265). Plaintiffs' attorneys who are retained sufficiently in advance of the expiration of the statute of limitations may avoid the problem of identifying a "Jane Doe" defendant for service within the time limits of CPLR 306-b, where successful pre-action disclosure results in the identification of the unknown defendant prior to the filing of a summons and complaint.

A second mechanism, available when a governmental entity may know the identify of the unknown party, is the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 8, hereinafter FOIL). In a case such as this involving a public employee, Public Officers Law § 89 would require the disclosure of the employee's name (see Matter of Faulkner v Del Giacco, 139 Misc 2d 790, 794 [disclosure of names of prison guards accused of inappropriate behavior]), but exempt from disclosure the employee's home address (see Public Officers Law §§ 87[2][b]; 89[2][b]; 89[7]; Matter of Pasik v State Bd. of Law Examiners, 114 Misc 2d 397, 407-408, mod 102 AD2d 395). Nothing in the Public Officers Law appears to prohibit the disclosure of records identifying an employee's work location and schedule, which was the information that the NYCTA ultimately agreed to provide to the plaintiff's counsel in this instance to enable service of process upon Smith. FOIL requests are designed to be acted upon by public agencies expeditiously, typically within five business days from receipt of a written request for non-exempt records (see Public Officers Law § 95[1][a]). The speed of the statute can prove useful to practitioners who, facing an approaching statute of limitations, seek to identify the "Jane Doe" party prior to the commencement of the action.

Third, if pre-action discovery or FOIL requests are not viable options, plaintiffs intending to pursue a "Jane Doe" defendant may commence their actions against any known co-defendants, who may possess information identifying the unknown party, well in advance of the statute of limitations (accord Misa v Hossain, 42 AD3d at 486). Doing so affords two distinct procedural options. If the discovery process would not lead to an identification of the unknown target in sufficient time for service of process upon that party under the limited 120-day deadline of CPLR 306-b, the subsequent disclosure of identifying information will still permit, within the wider statute of limitations, either an amended complaint by stipulation or by leave of court naming the [*5]additional party (see CPLR 3025[b]), or alternatively, the commencement of a timely separate action against the additional party with a view to its later consolidation with the original action (see CPLR 602[a]; cf. Matter of Vogel, 19 Misc 3d 853, 859). Commencing the initial action well before the expiration of the statute of limitations makes service upon the newly-identified party possible. The same result does not inure to practitioners who wait until the limitations period is close to expiring before commencing their actions against known parties.

Fourth, when an originally-named defendant and an unknown "Jane Doe" party are united in interest, i.e. employer and employee, the later-identified party may, in some instances, be added to the suit after the statute of limitations has expired pursuant to the "relation-back" doctrine of CPLR 203(f), based upon post-limitations disclosure of the unknown party's identity (see Reznick v MTA/Long Is. Bus, 7 AD3d 773, 774; Gottlieb v County of Nassau, 92 AD2d 858). The relation-back doctrine allows a party to be added to an action after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the claim is deemed timely interposed, if (1) the claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well (see Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 178). The moving party seeking to apply the relation-back doctrine to a later-identified "Jane Doe" defendant has the added burden of establishing that diligent efforts were made to ascertain the unknown party's identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations (see Hall v Rao, 26 AD3d at 695; Scoma v Doe, 2 AD3d at 433; Tucker v Lorieo, 291 AD2d at 262).

Furthermore, if the plaintiff is truly at the mercy of a service extension under CPLR 306-b, which is discretionary on the part of the court (compare Crystal v Lisnow, 56 AD3d 713, 714 with Cooper v New York City Bd. of Educ., 55 AD3d 526), any "Jane Doe" service problem should be proactively addressed by the filing of a motion for a CPLR 306-b extension. Indeed, the promptness of a request for an extension of time to serve a "Jane Doe" defendant is a specific factor that is to be considered by courts in determining "interest of justice" extensions (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105-106; Matter of Anonymous v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 53 AD3d 810, 810-811; Rosenzweig v 60 N. St. LLC, 35 AD3d 705; Scarabaggio v Olympia & York Estates Co., 278 AD2d 476, affd 97 NY2d 95). While CPLR 306-b is not construed to require that a motion for a service extension be filed before the expiration of the 120-day statutory period (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 106-07), prompt motions are more likely to be successful (id.; Scarabaggio v Olympia & York Estates Co., 278 AD2d at 476), as they are a sign of diligence, whereas dilatory motions are less so (see Matter of Anonymous v New York State Off. of Children & Family Services, 53 AD3d at 810-811).

The bold is mine.

CPLR § 306-b. Service of the summons and complaint, summons with notice, third-party summons and complaint, or petition with a notice of petition or order to show cause 

CPLR § 3102 Method of obtaining disclosure
(c) Before action commenced

CPLR R. 3025 Amended and supplemental pleadings
(b) Amendments and supplemental pleadings by leave

CPLR § 602 Consolidation
(a) Generally

CPLR § 203 Method of computing periods of limitation generally
(f) Claim in amended pleading

I'm only posting the analysis on this one.  For the facts in their entirety, read the decision.  For a brief intro to the decision, click here.

Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 2009 NY Slip Op 05737 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

II. The Interplay of CPLR 1024 and 306-b

The New York State Legislature has recognized that there are circumstances where a party is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the identity of a person who should be made a party to an action. CPLR 1024 allows for the commencement of an action against an unknown party "by designating so much of his name and identity as is known" (see generally Orchard Park Cent. School Dist. v Orchard Park Teachers Assn., 50 AD2d 462, 467). To be effective, a summons and complaint must describe the unknown party in such a manner that the "Jane Doe" would understand that she is the intended defendant by a reading of the papers (see Olmsted v Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 28 AD3d 855, 856; Justin v Orshan, 14 AD3d 492; Lebowitz v Fieldston Travel Bur., 181 AD2d 481, 482).

The use of CPLR 1024 presents many pitfalls. One pitfall is that parties are not to resort to the "Jane Doe" procedure unless they exercise due diligence, prior to the running of the statute of limitations, to identify the defendant by name and, despite such efforts, are unable to do so (see Hall v Rao, 26 AD3d 694, 695; Justin v Orshan, 14 AD3d 492, 492-493; Opiela v May Indus. Corp., 10 AD3d 340, 341; Tucker v Lorieo, 291 AD2d 261; Porter v Kingsbrook OB/GYN Assoc., 209 AD2d 497). Any failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the "Jane Doe's" name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party (see Hall v Rao, 26 AD3d at 695; Justin v Orshan, 14 AD3d at 492-493; Opiela v May Indus. Corp., 10 AD3d at 341). A second requirement unique to CPLR 1024 is that the "Jane Doe" party be described in such form as will fairly apprise the party that she is the intended defendant (see City of Mount Vernon v Best Dev. Co., 268 NY 327, 331; Olmsted v Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 28 AD3d at 856; Justin v Orshan, 14 AD3d at 492-493). An insufficient description subjects the "Jane Doe" complaint to dismissal for being jurisdictionally defective (see Lebowitz v Fieldston Travel Bur., 181 AD2d 481, 482-483; Reid v Niagra Mach. & Tool Co., 170 AD2d 662). A third pitfall unique to CPLR 1024 is its interplay with CPLR 306-b.

Prior to 1992, when actions in the Supreme and County Courts were commenced by the service of process rather than by filing, a party suing a "Jane Doe" defendant was under no particular time deadline for ascertaining the unknown party's identity, other than commencing an action against all defendants prior to the expiration of the relevant statute of limitations (see Luckern [*3]v Lyondale Energy Ltd. Partnership, 229 AD2d 249, 255)^[FN1]. However, the enactment of CPLR 306-a in 1992 required that actions in Supreme and County Courts be commenced by filing rather than by service (L 1992, ch 216, § 6; see generally Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714, 718-720) and upon filing, CPLR 306-b, which was enacted at the same time as 306-a (L 1992, ch 216, § 7), superimposed the requirement that service of process be effected within 120 days (see CPLR 306-b; see generally Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 100-101). The filing of the summons with notice or summons and complaint fixed the point at which an action was commenced for statute of limitations purpose (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 100; Matter of Gershel v Porr, 89 NY2d 327, 330).

The enactment of CPLR 306-b placed plaintiffs wishing to commence actions against "Jane Doe" defendants in an unenviable position that did not previously exist. By virtue of CPLR 306-b, plaintiffs were required to ascertain the identity of unknown "Jane Doe" parties, and to serve process upon them, within 120 days from filing. As a practical matter, it is not always easy or even possible for plaintiffs naming "Jane Doe" defendants to meet the service expectations of CPLR 306-b. In any given case involving two or more defendants including an unknown party, a plaintiff may serve process upon the known defendants early in the 120-day service period, and then wait 20 or 30 days for appearances and answers (see CPLR 320[a]), absent consent extensions or pre-answer motions to dismiss the complaint (see CPLR 3211). Upon the joinder of issue, the plaintiff may then serve discovery demands upon the known parties or upon non-parties for information that may identify the unknown party, and wait for responses which may or may not be fruitful, complied with, or timely. The mechanics of serving process upon known parties, joining issue, demanding discovery, and receiving meaningful responses will, as a practical matter, exhaust, in many cases, all or most of the 120-day period of CPLR 306-b for effecting service upon the newly-identified party. If a "Jane Doe" is the only named defendant in an action, the timely identification of the party's true identity for service of process is even more challenging.

The harshness of CPLR 306-b under these circumstances is ameliorated, in appropriate instances, by the "good cause" and "interest of justice" exceptions to CPLR 306-b. These exceptions have particular utility in actions where, as here, a plaintiff is delayed in effecting service of process by virtue of not knowing the identity of a target defendant.

The 120-day service provision of CPLR 306-b can be extended by a court, upon motion, "upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice" (CPLR 306-b). "Good cause" and "interest of justice" are two separate and independent statutory standards (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 104). To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105-06). Good cause will not exist where a plaintiff fails to make any effort at service (see Valentin v Zaltsman, 39 AD3d 852; Lipschitz v McCann, 13 AD3d 417), or fails to make at least a reasonably diligent effort at service (see e.g. Kazimierski v New York Univ., 18 AD3d 820; Baione v Central Suffolk Hosp., 14 AD3d 635, 636-637; Busler v Corbett, 259 AD2d 13, 15). By contrast, good cause may be found to exist where the plaintiff's failure to timely serve process is a result of circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control (see U.S. 1 Brookville Real Estate Corp. v Spallone, 13 Misc 3d 1236[A], quoting Eastern Refractories Co., Inc. v Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 187 FRD 503, 505; see also Greco v Renegades, Inc., 307 AD2d 711, 712 [difficulties of service associated with locating defendant enlisted in military]; Kulpa v Jackson, 3 Misc 3d 227, 235 [difficulties associated with service abroad through the Hague Convention]).

If good cause for an extension is not established, courts must consider the "interest of justice" standard of CPLR 306-b (see e.g. Busler v Corbett, 259 AD2d at 17). The interest of justice standard does not require reasonably diligent efforts at service, but courts, in making their [*4]determinations, may consider the presence or absence of diligence, along with other factors (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105). The interest of justice standard is broader than the good cause standard (see Mead v Singleman, 24 AD3d 1142, 1144), as its factors also include the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a request by the plaintiff for an extension, and prejudice to the defendant (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105-106; Matter of Jordan v City of New York, 38 AD3d 336, 339; Estey-Dorsa v Chavez, 27 AD3d 277; Mead v Singleman, 24 AD3d at 1144; de Vries v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 11 AD3d 312, 313; Hafkin v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 279 AD2d 86, 90-91, affd 97 NY2d 95; see also Slate v Schiavone Const. Co., 4 NY3d 816).

The practicing bar need not rely exclusively on the ameliorative provisions of CPLR 306-b for coping with the difficulties posed by pursuing actions against unknown parties. There are, in fact, at least four procedural mechanisms that may be utilized which, if applicable and successful, would render unnecessary a party's reliance upon "good cause" or the "interest of justice" for additional time to serve process upon "Jane Doe" defendants who cannot be readily identified.

One such method is pre-action disclosure as permitted by CPLR 3102(c). The statute permits a prospective plaintiff to seek, by court order, disclosure that will aid in bringing the action (see CPLR 3102[c]). It has been recommended that a request for pre-action disclosure be sought by means of a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 4 (see Connors, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, CPLR C3102:4, quoting Robinson v Government of Malaysia, 174 Misc 2d 560). While pre-action disclosure is often thought of as a device to enable the plaintiff to frame a complaint (see generally Matter of Wien & Malkin v Wichman, 255 AD2d 244; Matter of Perez v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 84 AD2d 789; Matter of Rosenberg v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 80 AD2d 834; Matter of Urban v Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 75 AD2d 720; Matter of Roland, 10 AD2d 263, 265) or to preserve evidence for a forthcoming lawsuit (see generally Matter of Thomas v New York City Tr. Police Dept., 91 AD2d 898; Gearing v Kelly, 15 AD2d 477; Matter of O'Grady v City of New York, 164 Misc 2d 171, 173; Matter of Spraggins v Current Cab Corp., 127 Misc 2d 774, 775), it has also been recognized as an appropriate device for ascertaining the identities of prospective defendants (see Matter of Alexander v Spanierman Gallery, LLC, 33 AD3d 411; Matter of Toal v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 300 AD2d 592; Matter of Stewart v New York City Tr. Auth., 112 AD2d 939, 940; Perez v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 84 AD2d at 789; Matter of Bergan v Sullivan Bros. Wood Prods. of Keeseville, 77 AD2d 723; Matter of Roland, 10 AD2d at 265). Plaintiffs' attorneys who are retained sufficiently in advance of the expiration of the statute of limitations may avoid the problem of identifying a "Jane Doe" defendant for service within the time limits of CPLR 306-b, where successful pre-action disclosure results in the identification of the unknown defendant prior to the filing of a summons and complaint.

A second mechanism, available when a governmental entity may know the identify of the unknown party, is the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 8, hereinafter FOIL). In a case such as this involving a public employee, Public Officers Law § 89 would require the disclosure of the employee's name (see Matter of Faulkner v Del Giacco, 139 Misc 2d 790, 794 [disclosure of names of prison guards accused of inappropriate behavior]), but exempt from disclosure the employee's home address (see Public Officers Law §§ 87[2][b]; 89[2][b]; 89[7]; Matter of Pasik v State Bd. of Law Examiners, 114 Misc 2d 397, 407-408, mod 102 AD2d 395). Nothing in the Public Officers Law appears to prohibit the disclosure of records identifying an employee's work location and schedule, which was the information that the NYCTA ultimately agreed to provide to the plaintiff's counsel in this instance to enable service of process upon Smith. FOIL requests are designed to be acted upon by public agencies expeditiously, typically within five business days from receipt of a written request for non-exempt records (see Public Officers Law § 95[1][a]). The speed of the statute can prove useful to practitioners who, facing an approaching statute of limitations, seek to identify the "Jane Doe" party prior to the commencement of the action.

Third, if pre-action discovery or FOIL requests are not viable options, plaintiffs intending to pursue a "Jane Doe" defendant may commence their actions against any known co-defendants, who may possess information identifying the unknown party, well in advance of the statute of limitations (accord Misa v Hossain, 42 AD3d at 486). Doing so affords two distinct procedural options. If the discovery process would not lead to an identification of the unknown target in sufficient time for service of process upon that party under the limited 120-day deadline of CPLR 306-b, the subsequent disclosure of identifying information will still permit, within the wider statute of limitations, either an amended complaint by stipulation or by leave of court naming the [*5]additional party (see CPLR 3025[b]), or alternatively, the commencement of a timely separate action against the additional party with a view to its later consolidation with the original action (see CPLR 602[a]; cf. Matter of Vogel, 19 Misc 3d 853, 859). Commencing the initial action well before the expiration of the statute of limitations makes service upon the newly-identified party possible. The same result does not inure to practitioners who wait until the limitations period is close to expiring before commencing their actions against known parties.

Fourth, when an originally-named defendant and an unknown "Jane Doe" party are united in interest, i.e. employer and employee, the later-identified party may, in some instances, be added to the suit after the statute of limitations has expired pursuant to the "relation-back" doctrine of CPLR 203(f), based upon post-limitations disclosure of the unknown party's identity (see Reznick v MTA/Long Is. Bus, 7 AD3d 773, 774; Gottlieb v County of Nassau, 92 AD2d 858). The relation-back doctrine allows a party to be added to an action after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the claim is deemed timely interposed, if (1) the claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party, and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well (see Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 178). The moving party seeking to apply the relation-back doctrine to a later-identified "Jane Doe" defendant has the added burden of establishing that diligent efforts were made to ascertain the unknown party's identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations (see Hall v Rao, 26 AD3d at 695; Scoma v Doe, 2 AD3d at 433; Tucker v Lorieo, 291 AD2d at 262).

Furthermore, if the plaintiff is truly at the mercy of a service extension under CPLR 306-b, which is discretionary on the part of the court (compare Crystal v Lisnow, 56 AD3d 713, 714 with Cooper v New York City Bd. of Educ., 55 AD3d 526), any "Jane Doe" service problem should be proactively addressed by the filing of a motion for a CPLR 306-b extension. Indeed, the promptness of a request for an extension of time to serve a "Jane Doe" defendant is a specific factor that is to be considered by courts in determining "interest of justice" extensions (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105-106; Matter of Anonymous v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 53 AD3d 810, 810-811; Rosenzweig v 60 N. St. LLC, 35 AD3d 705; Scarabaggio v Olympia & York Estates Co., 278 AD2d 476, affd 97 NY2d 95). While CPLR 306-b is not construed to require that a motion for a service extension be filed before the expiration of the 120-day statutory period (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 106-07), prompt motions are more likely to be successful (id.; Scarabaggio v Olympia & York Estates Co., 278 AD2d at 476), as they are a sign of diligence, whereas dilatory motions are less so (see Matter of Anonymous v New York State Off. of Children & Family Services, 53 AD3d at 810-811).

The bold is mine.

CPLR § 602 Consolidation
(a) Generally

CPLR § 203 Method of computing periods of limitation generally
(f) Claim in amended pleading

CPLR R. 3025(b) Leave to Amend Granted on Eve of Trial

CPLR R. 3025 Amended and supplemental pleadings
(b) Amendments and supplemental pleadings by leave

Reyes v City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 05267 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to amend her pleadings on the eve of trial to allege prior written notice, where such amendment did not prejudice or surprise defendant (CPLR 3025[b]; see Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959 [1983]; Mezzacappa Bros., Inc v City of New York, 29 AD3d 494 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 712 [2006]). Plaintiff alleged actual notice in her initial pleadings, and based on the service of a notice to admit attaching the Big Apple Map and receipt of the map by the Department of Transportation, defendant was aware at least five years prior to trial that plaintiff [*2]intended to rely upon prior written notice.

ADA Dining Corp. v 208 E. 58th St., LLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 05173 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

The court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in granting the cross motion to amend the complaint (CPLR 3025[b]), and in declining to dismiss said amended complaint as materially different from the proposed amended complaint inasmuch as the new claims had merit and were properly pleaded (see Thomas Crimmins Contr. Co. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 166, 170 [1989]; Peach Parking Corp. v 346 W. 40th St., LLC, 42 AD3d 82, 86 [2007]). There was no surprise since the court had not only discussed the issue of accord and satisfaction in its decision, but the amended complaint was in accordance with the June 3, 2008 order, which specifically permitted plaintiffs to include the allegations contained in the discontinued Florida action.

Furthermore, the allegations of accord and satisfaction sufficiently pleaded the existence of a written and signed accord (General Obligations Law § 15-501[2]), based upon the August 2007 agreement which included an option to purchase the building at a set price that purportedly subsumed the claimed overdue rent (see Porthos v Arverne Houses, 269 AD2d 377 [2000] [party seeking to establish an accord and satisfaction must show a disputed claim which the parties mutually resolved through a new contract discharging all or part of prior contractual obligations]). 

The bold is mine

CPLR R. 3025(b)

CPLR R. 3025 Amended and supplemental pleadings
(d) Responses to amended or supplemental pleadings

Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v Briarpatch Film Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 02463 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe III, J.), entered June 18, 2008, which denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the third amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings including further discovery. Orders, same court and Justice, entered September 12, 2008, which denied renewal of plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint, and which closed discovery in this action and directed that plaintiffs file a note of issue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic in view of the foregoing.

Leave to amend pleadings is to be freely given, absent a showing of prejudice or surprise (see CPLR 3025[b]; Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957, 959 [1983]). Here, there was no showing of prejudice or surprise resulting from plaintiffs' delay in asserting new claims to conform the complaint to the proof (CPLR 3025[c]) and to increase the ad damnum clause, especially in light of the history of defendants' belated responses to plaintiffs' discovery demands (see Curiale v Ardra Ins. Co., 223 AD2d 445 [1996]). Nor were plaintiffs' moving papers unreliable or insufficient to support the new claims (see Peach Parking Corp. v 346 W. 40th St., LLC, 52 AD3d 260 [2008]). Defendants' discovery responses were provided to plaintiffs after the latest amendment of the complaint and attached to plaintiffs' motion. The responses sufficiently demonstrated the merits for purposes of amending the complaint to assert new claims for violation of a restraining notice (CPLR 5222) and slander of title (see 39 Coll. Point Corp. v [*2]Transpac Capital Corp., 27 AD3d 454 [2006]). Accordingly, leave to amend should have been granted, and discovery should proceed.

CPLR DECISIONS (I'll be splitting these up into their own posts in a bit)

CPLR R. 5015 Relief from judgment or order

Toland v Young, 2009 NY Slip Op 01793 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

A defendant seeking to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Canty v Gregory, 37 AD3d 508; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067). The defendants' excuse that their insurance carrier failed to provide a defense was insufficient to excuse their default in serving a timely answer (see Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 672; Krieger v Cohan, 18 [*2]AD3d 823, 824; Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353, 356). In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendants sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (see Levi v Levi, 46 AD3d 519, 520; Segovia v Delcon Constr. Corp., 43 AD3d 1143, 1144; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD2d at 1068). Accordingly, the defendants' motion to vacate their default was properly denied.

CPLR R 305 Summons; supplemental summons, amendment
(c) Amendment

CPLR R 3025 Amended and supplemental pleadings
(c) Amendment to conform to the evidence.

Smith v Garo Enters., Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 01790 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

"Under CPLR 305(c), an amendment to correct a misnomer will be permitted if the court has acquired jurisdiction over the intended but misnamed defendant . . . provided that . . . the intended but misnamed defendant was fairly apprised that [he] was the party the action was intended to affect . . . [and] would not be prejudiced' by allowing the amendment" (Holster v Ross, 45 AD3d 640, 642, quoting Simpson v Kenston Warehousing Corp., 154 AD2d 526, 527). "Such amendments are permitted where the correct party defendant has been served with process, but under a misnomer, and where the misnomer could not possibly have misled the defendant concerning who it was that [*2]the plaintiff was in fact seeking to sue" (Creative Cabinet Corp. of Am. v Future Visions Computer Store, 140 AD2d 483, 484-485; see Ober v Rye Town Hilton, 159 AD2d 16, 20). However, "while CPLR 305(c) may be utilized to correct the name of an existing defendant (see Benware v Schoenborn, 198 AD2d 710, 711-712), it cannot be used by a party as a device to add or substitute a party defendant (see Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Black & Decker Corp., 255 AD2d 771, 773)" (Hart v Marriott Intl., 304 AD2d 1057, 1059). A plaintiff may not invoke CPLR 305(c) to proceed against an entirely new defendant, who was not served, after the expiration of the statute of limitations (see Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Black & Decker Corp., 255 AD2d 771, 773).

Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, " [t]his is not a case where a party is misnamed . . .; rather it is a case where the plaintiff seeks to add or substitute a party defendant'" (Achtziger v Fuji Copian Corp., 299 AD2d 946, 947, quoting Jordan v Lehigh Constr. Group, 259 AD2d 962, 962). The plaintiff failed to establish that he properly served Carol Radin, Alvin Radin, and Radin Enterprises, LLC, the proposed additional defendants (see Gennosa v Twinco Servs., 267 AD2d 200, 201; Feszczyszyn v General Motors Corp., 248 AD2d 939, 940; Vandermallie v Liebeck, 225 AD2d 1069, 1069). Having failed to establish that the proposed additional defendants were properly served, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief he sought pursuant to CPLR 305(c) or CPLR 3025 (see Achtziger v Fuji Copian Corp., 299 AD2d at 947; Gennosa v Twinco Servs., 267 AD2d at 201; Jordan v Lehigh Constr. Group, 259 AD2d at 962; Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Black & Decker Corp., 255 AD2d at 773; Feszczyszyn v General Motors Corp., 248 AD2d at 940; Vandermallie v Liebeck, 225 AD2d at 1069).

CPLR R. 2221 Motion affecting prior order
(e) A motion for leave to renew:

2. shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination; and

3. shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion.

Ramirez v Khan, 2009 NY Slip Op 01788 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to renew his opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment (see Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472). A motion for leave to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221[e][2]) and "shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221[e][3]; see Dinten-Quiros v Brown, 49 AD3d 588; Madison v Tahir, 45 AD3d 744). While it may be within the court's discretion to grant leave to renew upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion (see J.D. Structures v Waldbaum, 282 AD2d 434; Cronwall Equities v International Links Dev. Corp., 255 AD2d 354), a motion for leave to renew " is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in [*2]making their first factual presentation'" (Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d at 472, quoting Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 329; see also O'Dell v Caswell, 12 AD3d 492; Hart v City of New York, 5 AD3d 438; Carota v Wu, 284 AD2d 614). In this case, the plaintiff failed to provide reasonable justification for the failure to include the affirmation of Dr. Robert Scott Schepp on the prior motion (see Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d at 472). In any event, that affirmation would not have changed the prior determination awarding summary judgment to the defendant (id.).

CPLR R. 2104 Stipulations

Lim v Choices, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 01783 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

In support of that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the complaint, the defendant established that the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement through the submission of an affidavit of its president, an agreement memorializing the parties' agreement to settle and discontinue the instant action signed by both parties, and a copy of the bank check referenced in the agreement representing full settlement and satisfaction of all claims asserted in the action (see CPLR 2104). In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which he did not deny either signing the agreement or accepting and cashing the bank check. Thus, there was no dispute that the parties entered into a valid "out-of-court settlement [that was] adequately described in a signed writing" (Bonette v Long Is. College Hosp., 3 NY3d 281, 286). Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, notwithstanding the absence of the filing of a voluntary discontinuance under CPLR 3217, the documentary evidence proffered in support of the motion clearly evidenced the plaintiff's intent to release the defendant from the action (see Gale v Citicorp, 278 AD2d 197; see also Spence v Jones, 51 AD3d 771, 772; Hanna v Ford Motor Co., 252 AD2d 478).

CPLR R. 4404 Post-trial motion for judgment and new trial

Jean-Louis v City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 01780 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

At trial, the plaintiff testified that she slipped on a piece of metal covered with snow and ice. However, she could not identify the piece of metal shown in a photograph of the accident site that had been taken at some point after the accident. At the end of the plaintiff's testimony, before [*2]two of her witnesses had the opportunity to testify, the defendant New York Transit Authority (hereinafter the defendant) moved pursuant to CPLR 4401(a) for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall. The court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The court erred in dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant before the plaintiff had completed her proof (see Greenbaum v Hershman, 31 AD3d 607; Balogh v H.R.B. Caterers, 88 AD2d 136, 141). The plaintiff should have been afforded the opportunity to call her niece, who allegedly witnessed the accident, and her expert, to testify (see Greenbaum v Hershman, 31 AD3d 607).

CPLR R. 3211 Motion to dismiss
(a)(3) the party asserting the cause of action has not legal capacity to sue

J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc. v Onekey, LLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 01777 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff, as a dissolved corporation, lacks the legal capacity to sue. Since the claim underlying this suit is an alleged breach of contract which occurred in 1998, prior to the plaintiff's dissolution, [*2]it was properly permitted to pursue that claim in the course of winding up its affairs (see Business Corporation Law § 1006[b]; Tedesco v A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 8 NY3d 243).

CPLR § 5701 Appeals to appellate division from supreme and county courts
(a) Appeals as of right
2. from an order not specified in subdivision (b), where the motion it decided was made upon notice and it:
(v) affects a substantial right

(a)(2)(v)

Iodice v City of White Plains, 2009 NY Slip Op 01775 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

An order directing a judicial hearing on a motion to adjudicate a party in contempt does not decide the motion, nor does it affect a substantial right (see CPLR 5701[a][2][v]) and is, therefore, not appealable as a matter of right (see Sloboda v Sloboda, 24 AD3d 533, 534; Liebling v Yankwitt, 109 AD2d 780). Moreover, we decline to grant leave to appeal from the order. Accordingly, the instant appeal must be dismissed (see Kornblum v Kornblum, 34 AD3d 749, 751; Palma v Palma, 101 AD2d 812).

CPLR R. 2106 Affirmation of truth of statement by attorney, physician, osteopath or dentist

Pascucci v Wilke, 2009 NY Slip Op 01846 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Plaintiff's failure to submit the clinical psychologist's opinion in admissible form left him with no admissible medical opinion evidence to rebut defendant's prima facie showing that she did not commit malpractice in treating the decedent (see CPLR 2106; Sanchez v Romano, 292 AD2d 202, 203 [2002]).

CPLR § 2201 Stay

American Intl. Group, Inc. v Greenberg, 2009 NY Slip Op 01840 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

The motion court properly declined to grant a stay of proceedings pending resolution of a related action in federal court (see CPLR 2201; 952 Assoc., LLC v Palmer, 52 AD3d 236, 236-237 [2008]; Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v Corning Inc., 33 AD3d 51, 58-59 [2006]). Defendants are former executives and/or directors of plaintiff American International Group, Inc. (AIG), the defendant in the federal action; they are current and/or former directors and/or voting shareholders of the plaintiff in the federal action, Starr International Co., Inc. (SICO). In the federal action, AIG asserted [*2]counterclaims against SICO arising out of SICO's alleged obligations to AIG in connection with certain stock. AIG's allegations herein arise out of defendants' alleged independent fiduciary duties to AIG by virtue of their express pledges to preserve the value of said stock. A finding as to SICO's duty to AIG would not affect defendants' potential liability as independent fiduciaries of AIG and would not dispose of or significantly limit the issues involved in this action or pose a risk of inconsistent rulings (see Belopolsky v Renew Data Corp., 41 AD3d 322 [2007]); Asher v Abbott Labs., 307 AD2d 211 [2003]).

CPLR § 5701 Appeals to appellate division from supreme and county courts

Matter of Ronald Anthony G. v Ronald G., 2009 NY Slip Op 01839 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about April 23, 2008, which, in a child neglect proceeding, upon respondent-appellant parent's failure to submit papers in opposition to petitioner ACS's motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 1039-b(b)(6) for a finding that reasonable efforts to return the child to his home are not required, reserved decision on the motion in order to afford appellant an opportunity to submit evidence in support of his position that a hearing on reasonable efforts is required, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

In opposition to the motion, which was based on the existence of judgments involuntarily terminating respondents' parental rights to other of their children, appellant submitted no evidence but simply argued that due process necessarily required a hearing. The order on appeal, however, makes no ruling one way or the other as to whether there will be a hearing. While the order does determine that the judgments terminating parental rights satisfied petitioner's initial burden on the motion, and that the burden was thereby placed on respondents to come forward with evidence raising issues of fact bearing on the other inquires to be made on a section 1039-b(b)(6) motion — whether providing reasonable efforts would be in the child's best interests, not contrary to the child's health and safety, and likely to result in reunification of parent and child in the foreseeable future — the order makes no findings of fact. Instead, it affords appellant and his co-respondent an additional opportunity to submit evidence pertinent to these other inquiries, and sets a briefing schedule and a new return date. To the extent the order reserves decision on the [*2]motion, it is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701[a][2]; see Granato v Granato, 51 AD3d 589, 590 [2008]); to the extent the order imposes a burden on appellant to come forward with evidence, at this juncture, absent a finding dispensing with reasonable efforts, appellant is not aggrieved thereby (CPLR 5511).

CPLR § 105 Definitions

(u) Verified pleading. A “verified pleading” may be utilized as an affidavit whenever the latter is required.

Estate of James Brown v Pullman Group, 2009 NY Slip Op 01838 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Denial of renewal was proper because this evidence was available at the time of the initial motion, and the failure to submit it was unexplained (see Matter of Beiny, 132 AD2d 190, 210 [1987], lv dismissed 71 NY2d 994 [1988]). In any event, the purportedly new evidence would not have altered the initial determination (see NYCTL 1999-1 Trust v 114 Tenth Ave. Assoc., Inc., 44 AD3d 576 [2007], appeal dismissed 10 NY3d 757 [2008], cert denied __ US __, 129 S Ct 458 [2008]). Leave to amend was properly denied since the counterclaims had already been [*2]dismissed. We further note that the proposed amendment was unsupported by an affidavit of merit (see Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP v Kassover, 28 AD3d 404 [2006]) or a verified pleading (CPLR 105[u]).

CPLR § 203 Method of computing periods of limitation generally

17 E. 96th Owners Corp. v Madison 96th Assoc., LLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 01837 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Although the first amended complaint did not expressly refer to the underground foundation wall, it did not limit defendant's purported encroachment to the installation of underpinning but included "other encroaching subsurface structures." Thus, the language in the first amended complaint, which envisioned the possibility of other subsurface structures, was sufficiently broad to encompass the encroachment subsequently discovered through the land survey. The proposed new pleading does not, therefore, assert a new and distinct claim but, instead, is based upon the same conduct, transaction or occurrence as that asserted in the first amended complaint (see CPLR 203[f]).

Furthermore, since the proposed new defendant, Condominium, which now owns the building, is the successor-in-interest to the sponsor, Madison 96th Associates, LLC, and not merely an unrelated party with no notice of the subject litigation, plaintiff should also have been permitted to add Condominium as a defendant.

CPLR 3216 Want of prosecution

Smith v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2009 NY Slip Op 01835 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

This action for wrongful death, medical malpractice and medical negligence was commenced in 2000. In October 2004, defendants served a 90-day notice (CPLR 3216[b][3]) demanding that plaintiff resume prosecution, complete discovery and file a note of issue. Plaintiff acknowledges "technically" having failed to respond to this notice and instead serving discovery demands upon defendants in July 2005, thereafter attempting to commence settlement negotiations. Defendants served their motion to dismiss in August 2007.

CPLR 3216(e) permits a court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution after the defendants have served the plaintiff with an unheeded 90-day notice, absent a showing of justifiable excuse for the delay and a good and meritorious cause of action. Since the notice was properly served and plaintiff never explained her delay or demonstrated merit in the form of a detailed affidavit from a medical expert, the court's refusal to dismiss was an improvident exercise of discretion (see Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941 [1992]; Ramos v Lapommeray, 135 AD2d 439 [1987]). The certificate of merit filed by plaintiff's counsel in October 2000 was not a [*2]valid substitute for a medical expert's affidavit (see Jackson v Bronx County Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 7 AD3d 356 [2004]).

CPLR R. 3025(d); R. 3211(e): Affirmative Defense Pleaded in Amended Answer, Not in Initial Answer

CPLR R. 3025 Amended and supplemental pleadings
(d) Responses to amended or supplemental pleadings

CPLR R. 3211 Motion to dismiss
(e) Number, time and waiver of objections; motion to plead over

Mendrzycki v Cricchio, 2008 NY Slip Op 09044 (App. Div, 2nd)

On this appeal, we are presented with the principal question of whether a defendant may assert a statute of limitations defense for the first time in an answer served pursuant to CPLR 3025(d) and responsive to an amended complaint served pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), or whether such a defense is waived by not having been pleaded in the original answer to the initial complaint. We hold that such a defense is not waived as the answer presently under dispute, which was required by CPLR 3025(d), constitutes an original answer to the amended complaint.

...

CPLR 3211(e) provides in pertinent part, "[a]ny objection or defense based upon a ground set forth in paragraphs one, three, four, five and six of subdivision (a) is waived unless raised either by [a pre-answer motion to dismiss] or in the responsive pleading." Here, because the doctors' statute of limitations defense (see CPLR 3211[a][5]) was raised in responsive pleadings submitted pursuant to CPLR 3025(d), we conclude that the defense was not waived. That statute provides, in pertinent part, that "there shall be an answer or reply to an amended or supplemental pleading if an answer or reply is required to the pleading being amended or supplemented" (CPLR 3025[d]; see [*3]Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. v Pyramid Champlain Co., 193 AD2d 928, 930; Madison-Murray Assocs. v Perlbinder, 188 AD2d 362; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3025:21). Although CPLR 3025(d) is silent as to whether new affirmative defenses may be raised in an answer served under this subdivision, significantly, an amended complaint is deemed to supersede an original complaint, and thus, a defendant's original answer has no effect (see Chalasani v Neuman, 64 NY2d 879; Elegante Leasing, Ltd. v Cross Trans Svc, Inc., 11 AD3d 650; O'Ferral v City of New York, 8 AD3d 457, 459; John W. Cowper Co. v Buffalo Hotel Dev. Venture, 99 AD2d 19, 23-24; Stella v Stella, 92 AD2d 589). As such, an answer to an amended complaint served pursuant to CPLR 3025(d) is in fact an original answer to the amended complaint, and thus, affirmative defenses raised in that answer are not limited to those asserted in the original answer.

We recognize that plaintiffs may claim undue prejudice and surprise from the application of this rule. However, the primary focus is "the effect of the amended complaint served by plaintiff [ ]," rather than "the effect of the subsequent answer" (Boulay v Olympic Flame, 165 AD2d 191, 193). Since an amended complaint supplants the original complaint, it would unduly prejudice a defendant if it were bound by an original answer when the original complaint has no legal effect. In contrast, a supplemental complaint, which is not at issue here,^[FN1] does not supersede the original complaint, but is "in addition to it" (Pimsler v Angert, 1 AD2d 783, 783; see Lovisa Constr. Co. v Facilities Dev. Corp., 148 AD2d 913, 915; Stella v Stella, 92 AD2d 589). In such circumstances, the original answer remains in effect (see Stella v Stella, 92 AD2d at 589), such that a defendant could not assert a new affirmative defense in its answer to the supplemental complaint unless it is responsive to the new matter alleged (see Garden State Brickface Co. v Stecker, 130 AD2d 707, 709). Accordingly, we hold that a defendant may raise a statute of limitations affirmative defense for the first time in an answer to an amended complaint served pursuant to CPLR 3025(d) (see Boulay v Olympic Flame, 165 AD2d 191; Stella v Stella, 92 AD2d 589; see also Iacovangelo v Shepherd, 5 NY3d 184, 186 n; cf. Addesso v Shemtob, 70 NY2d 689).

Here, upon being served with an amended complaint, the doctors were required by CPLR 3025(d) to respond, and because the amended complaint superseded the initial complaint, despite the doctors' failure to raise a statute of limitations affirmative defense in their original answers to that complaint, the doctors did not waive their rights to assert that defense in their answers to the amended complaint. We note that, although the doctors' time to amend their original answers as of right pursuant to CPLR 3025(a) had expired, and they did not move for leave to amend those answers pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), they were not required to obtain leave to amend their answers, since the answers to the amended complaint were submitted pursuant to CPLR 3025(d).

Thus, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was to strike the doctors' respective affirmative defenses based on the statute of limitations as first raised in their answers to the amended complaints served pursuant to CPLR 3025(d).

1.  A plaintiff cannot avoid the application of this rule by simply denominating as a "supplemental" pleading one that asserts new injuries and a new category of damages, and which is therefore properly an amended pleading (see Fuentes v City of New York, 3 AD3d 549, 550; Pearce v Booth Mem. Hosp., 152 AD2d 553, 554)

The bold is mine.

CPLR R. 3025(b)

CPLR R. 3025 Amended and supplemental pleadings
(b) Amendments and supplemental pleadings by leave

Brooks v Robinson, 2008 NY Slip Op 08439 (App. Div., 2nd)

A determination whether to grant leave to serve an amended pleading is within the trial court's broad discretion, the exercise of which will not be lightly disturbed (see Ingrami v Rovner, 45 AD3d 806; Keating v Nanuet Bd. of Educ., 44 AD3d 623, 624; CPLR 3025[b]). "In exercising its discretion, the court should consider how long the amending party was aware of the facts upon which the motion was predicated, whether a reasonable excuse for the delay was offered, and whether prejudice resulted therefrom" (Mohammed v City of New York, 242 AD2d 321, 321; see F.G.L. Knitting Mills v 1087 Flushing Prop., 191 AD2d 533, 534). In addition, "[w]here . . . the [*2]proposed amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter of law or is totally devoid of merit, leave to amend should be denied" (Morton v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 32 AD3d 381, 381; Thone v Crown Equip. Corp., 27 AD3d 723, 724).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the motion of the defendant Brian E. Chambers, Jr., which was for leave to amend his answer. Chambers failed to offer a reasonable excuse for his delay. Additionally, the facts upon which Chambers based that branch of his motion which was for leave to amend the answer were known to him when he initially answered the complaint.

The bold is mine.