You are here: / / 2022
, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEFENDANT DEBTOR ENTERED A MORTGAGE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT WHICH CALLED FOR THREE PAYMENTS; DEFENDANT DEBTOR MADE FOUR ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IN AMOUNTS HIGHER THAN CALLED FOR IN THE MORTGAGE; THE PAYMENTS AMOUNTED TO AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT WHICH STARTED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE ON THE DATE OF THE LAST PAYMENT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the defendant debtor acknowledged the mortgage debt by paying more than was required by the Home Affordable Modification Trial Payment Plan. Therefore the statute of limitations for foreclosure started running when defendant debtor made the last payment:

In this mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in concluding that the complaint was timely inasmuch as Maxi Jeanty (debtor) made four payments between August 2009 and March 2010 on account of the mortgage debt which were effective pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-107 (1) to make the statute of limitations begin running anew on the date of the last such payment. We agree. Plaintiff met its prima facie burden on its motion … by submitting evidence that, after entering a Home Affordable Modification Trial Payment Plan (the Plan), the debtor made a total of seven payments from April 2009 through March 2010, each in an amount exceeding that of the regular installment payments required under the loan documents prior to the acceleration of the debt in August 2008. The first three payments were required pursuant to the Plan, but the remaining four were not. Those four payments established circumstances amounting to ‘an absolute and unqualified acknowledgment by the debtor of more being due, from which a promise may be inferred to pay the remainder’ (… see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [1]). Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Jeanty, 2022 NY Slip Op 06539, CtApp 11-17-22

Practice Point: In this foreclosure action, payments by the debtor which exceeded what was called for in the modification payment plan amounted to an acknowledgment of the mortgage debt. Therefore the statute of limitations on foreclosure began to run on the date of the last of those payments.

​

THE ENABLING ACT WHICH TASKED A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE WITH DECIDING WHETHER THE SALARIES OF LEGISLATORS AND STATE OFFICIALS SHOULD BE INCREASED IS CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive concurring opinion and a two-judge dissent, determined the enabling act which empowered a committee to decide whether to increase the salaries of legislators and state officials was constitutional. The opinions are far too comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of part HHH of chapter 59 of the Laws of 2018 (the enabling act), in which the Legislature tasked the Committee on Legislative and Executive Compensation with determining, after consideration of various factors, whether “the salary and allowances of the members of the [L]egislature” and certain other state officials “warrant an increase” … . The enabling act further provided that the Committee’s recommendation with respect to any salary changes would become effective unless modified or abrogated by statute. Inasmuch as defendants have failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality afforded to the enabling act as a duly enacted state statute … , we affirm. Delgado v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06538, CtApp 11-17-22

Practice Point: Here the enabling act which tasked a legislative committee with deciding whether the salaries of legislators and state officials should be increased was deemed constitutional.

 

,

THE APPELLATE DIVISION AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA AFTER A FLAWED SPEEDY-TRIAL ANALYSIS OF THE EIGHT-YEAR PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY; THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, EXPLAINED THE FLAWS AND REMITTED THE MATTER FOR A NEW ANALYSIS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division’s affirmance of defendant’s (Johnson’s) conviction by guilty plea and remitting the matter for another analysis, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the appellate division did not properly apply the “Taranovich” criteria to the eight-year pre-indictment delay in this rape/sexual abuse case.

In People v Taranovich, we established the following five factors for assessing speedy trial claims: (1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay … . Although this case concerns pre-indictment delay and is analyzed as a due process claim, we nevertheless apply the test established in Taranovich … . …

The Appellate Division “assume[d], arguendo, that the People failed to establish ‘good cause’ for the ‘protracted’ preindictment delay” … . However, some examination of the reason for the delay is required. Instead of attempting to evaluate the good faith reasons for the various periods of delay, the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the second factor favored Mr. Johnson is based upon an assumption for the sake of argument. …

Turning to the third factor, the “nature” of the underlying crime can refer to both its severity and, relatedly, the complexity and challenges of investigating the crime and gathering evidence to support a prosecution … . … Here, the Appellate Division held that its assumption that the People lacked good cause compelled the result that the “third factor[ ] favors[s] the defendant.” The crime here—the sexual assault of a minor found unresponsive on a city street—is quite serious. The nature of the crime here is directly related to the issues of complexity and may, therefore, account for some of the delay: the victim’s severe intoxication and lack of memory of the assault rendered her unable to identify her attacker. It is not clear on what basis the court concluded that its assumption of lack of good faith led to the conclusion that the third factor favored Mr. Johnson, but that conclusion, apparently based solely on that assumption with no analysis of the relevant concerns, is not supportable. …

In analyzing factor five, the Appellate Division held that because Mr. Johnson pled guilty only to rape in the second degree … , which depends solely on the age difference between the defendant and the victim, “the preindictment delay could not have ‘impaired’ defendant’s ability to defend himself on the charge of which he was convicted” … . This was error. When an indictment contains multiple counts, if delay impacts the defendant’s ability to defend one count, it may weaken that defendant’s position in plea bargaining, potentially adversely impacting the resulting plea … . Thus, the appellate court must consider prejudice measured against all counts pending when the dismissal motion is made, not merely against the crime of conviction. People v Johnson, 2022 NY Slip Op 06537, CtApp 11-17-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant pled guilty after an eight-year pre-indictment delay and the appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the appellate division’s application of the “Taranovich” framework for determining whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated seriously flawed. The Court of Appeals explained the flaws and remitted the matter to the appellate division for another speedy-trial analysis. The Court of Appeals noted that, where a defendant is charged with multiple counts, whether the delay impaired the defense must take into account all the charged counts, not just the count to which defendant pled guilty.

 

, ,

THE BIG APPLE MAP RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WAS AMENDED TO FIX A DEFICIENCY IN PLEADING THAT THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) there was a question of fact whether the Big Apple map provided the city with written notice of the sidewalk defect alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall; (2) the city’s evidence to the contrary was improperly first submitted in reply; (3) the plaintiff was entitled to amend the complaint to correct the deficiency in pleading the city had written notice of the sidewalk defect:

In support of its summary judgment motion, the City submitted evidence, including the most recent Big Apple Map received by the City prior to plaintiff’s accident, and argued that the Map did not depict the type of sidewalk defect that plaintiff testified caused her accident.

Based on all the evidence submitted, including the Big Apple Map and photographs of the sidewalk defect, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the City had prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition … . The City’s contention that the Big Apple Map had been rendered inapplicable by subsequent sidewalk repairs is unavailing. Aside from the fact that this argument was improperly raised for the first time on reply, the City’s submissions indicated that the defect remained unchanged. Further, the issue of whether the Big Apple Map was sufficiently close in time to provide prior written notice, and whether the area had remained unchanged, was a question for the jury … . Bchakjan v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06543, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: In NYC, a Big Apple map may provide the city with written notice of a sidewalk defect.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER (TOMS) WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE (ROSNER) WHICH WERE NOT DONE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ROSNER’S EMPLOYMENT OR TO FURTHER TOMS’ BUSINESS (FIRST DEPT). ​

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant Rosner, an employee of defendant TOMS Capital Management, was clearly not acting within the scope of his employment with TOMS when advising plaintiff on investments, allegedly as part of a scheme to deplete plaintiff’s assets. Therefore plaintiff’s unjust enrichment and negligence causes of action against TOMS based upon respondeat superior should have been dismissed:

In or about June 2020, Rosner allegedly began an affair with plaintiff’s wife. They then allegedly conspired to develop a scheme to deplete plaintiff’s assets. In furtherance of this scheme, Rosner began to advise plaintiff to invest in high-risk stock options which Rosner knew were not suitable for plaintiff and would not be profitable for him. Plaintiff followed the advice and sustained trading losses in excess of $300,000. Plaintiff alleges that this investment advice was part of a scheme by TOMS and Rosner to “better position the stock options,” in which TOMS was also allegedly participating, to benefit TOMS and Rosner and their clients.

The motion court incorrectly determined that the allegations in the complaint sufficiently supported claims for unjust enrichment and negligence against TOMS under a theory of respondeat superior. Even construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff … , the alleged acts by Rosner clearly were not made within the scope of his employment or in furtherance of TOMS’s business, but rather, for his own personal gain … . Courtois v TOMS Capital Mgt. LP, 2022 NY Slip Op 06545, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: Here defendant allegedly gave investment advice to plaintiff which was designed to deplete plaintiff’s assets. Because defendant’s acts were not done within the scope of his employment the unjust enrichment and negligence causes of action against defendant’s employer, pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, should have been dismissed.

 

, ,

NEW YORK DOES NOT HAVE GENERAL OR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A UK CORPORATION WHICH ALLEGEDLY MANUFACTURED A DEFECTIVE PART OF AN EXCAVATOR (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Miller defendants, a UK corporation, were not amenable to general or long-arm jurisdiction in New York. Plaintiff alleged a part (a coupler) made by Miller failed causing an excavator bucket to detach and fall:

General jurisdiction exists over a corporate entity only in the state(s) in which it is incorporated and has its principal place of business … . * * *

Defendants have also failed to establish specific jurisdiction over the Miller parties pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1), CPLR 302 (a)(3)(i) or CPLR 302 (a)(3)(ii). Although the Miller parties might have placed the coupler involved in plaintiff’s accident into the stream of commerce, and while they tout having a global customer base and business model, the Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that “the ‘fortuitous circumstance’ that a product sold in another state later makes its way into the forum jurisdiction through no marketing or other effort of [the] defendant,” or “‘the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum[,]’ cannot establish the requisite connection between [the] defendant and the forum” to support an exercise of specific personal jurisdiction … . Cruz v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06546, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: The ‘fortuitous circumstance’ that a product sold in another state later makes its way into the forum jurisdiction through no marketing or other effort of [the] defendant,” or “‘the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum[,]’ cannot establish the requisite connection between [the] defendant and the forum” to support an exercise of specific personal jurisdiction. Here New York did not have general or long-arm jurisdiction over a UK corporation which manufactured a part on an excavator which allegedly failed causing the excavator bucket to detach.

 

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SUPPORT POLE FOR THE SIDEWALK TENT FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE SLIP AND FALL BY REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO CHOOSE WHICH SIDE OF THE POLE TO WALK ON BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the support pole for the sidewalk shed furnished a condition for the sidewalk slip and fall but was not the proximate cause of the fall:

The record established as a matter of law that the sidewalk shed was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff testified that the support pole for the sidewalk shed was placed in the middle of the sidewalk, dividing the area into two paths that were three feet wide on each side, and that she and her husband elected to walk side-by-side on the path to the left nearest the tree well. Plaintiff stated that her husband “nudged” her to the left, and her foot touched the edge of the tree well, which was not level with the sidewalk, causing her to fall. This testimony established that the placement of the sidewalk shed support pole did not compel plaintiff to step into the tree well to proceed forward, but that its placement merely facilitated the accident or furnished the occasion for it … . Kalnit v 141 E. 88th St., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06552, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: A condition can furnish the occasion for an accident without being the proximate cause of the accident. Here a support pole for a sidewalk tent required plaintiff to choose which side of the pole to walk on but did not cause her slip and fall (she stepped in a tree well).

 

, , ,

EVEN IF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE INSURER AND CLAIMANT INSURANCE BROKER INCLUDED ALL THE STATUTORY FACTORS IN LABOR LAW 511, THE BROKER WILL BE CONSIDERED AN EMPLOYEE IF THE SERVICES ACTUALLY PROVIDED BY THE BROKER ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the insurance company, Paul Revere, did not demonstrate that claimant insurance broker was not an employee. Claimant was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Labor Law § 511 (21) provides that “[t]he term ’employment’ shall not include the services of a licensed insurance agent or broker if,” among other things, “the services performed by the agent or broker are performed pursuant to a written contract” … that, in turn, contains seven statutorily enumerated provisions … . Here, the Board concluded that two of the seven statutory requirements were absent from the written agreement entered into between claimant and Paul Revere — specifically, provisions demonstrating that claimant was “permitted to work any hours he . . . chooses” … and was “permitted to work out of his . . . own office or home or the office of the person for whom services are performed” … . Paul Revere disagrees, contending that article XI (A) of the written contract satisfies such requirements by providing that “Paul Revere shall not exercise nor have the right to exercise direction or control over [claimant’s] time, when or how [claimant] may work, or over the activities of [claimant].”

… [W]e agree with the Board that the conclusory and sweeping language employed in article XI (A) of the contract does not satisfy the requirements of Labor Law § 511 (21) (d) (iii) and (iv). … [E]ven assuming, without deciding, that the written agreement between Paul Revere and claimant did … fulfill all of the statutory requirements, we agree with the Board’s further conclusion that the parties’ conduct was inconsistent with the provisions of Labor Law § 511 (21) and, therefore, the services performed by claimant do not fall within the statutory exclusion…. . …

… [T]he statute requires both that the contract at issue contain the seven enumerated provisions and “that the services performed by the insurance agent or broker actually be consistent with those provisions” … . Matter of Hoyt (Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.–Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 06518, Third Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: Even if the contract between the insurer and claimant insurance broker includes all the statutory provisions in Labor Law 511 (such that the broker would not be considered an employee for unemployment insurance purposes), if the services actually performed by the broker are not consistent with those contract provisions the broker may be deemed an employee eligible for benefits.

 

, , ,

FAILURE TO FOLLOW DECEDENT’S DIRECTIVES IN A LIVING WILL OR HEALTHCARE PROXY CAN CONSTITUTE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHICH HEALTHCARE PROXY APPLIED, WHETHER A PROXY WAS REVOKED BY DECEDENT, AND WHETHER THE TREATMENT GIVEN TO DECEDENT WAS APPROVED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact concerning which of two contradictory healthcare proxies applied and whether one of the healthcare proxies was revoked by decedent’s conversations:

Plaintiff commenced an action against defendants alleging medical malpractice based on the various health proxies and forms. Plaintiff claims that defendants breached their agreement with the decedent by administering antibiotics and IV Hydration from April 15, 2017 onwards that prolonged his life.

Here, there are issues of fact that preclude summary judgment. It is unclear whether the 1993 healthcare proxy (and the living will), the 2016 healthcare proxy or the 2017 FLST [Forgoing Life-Sustaining Treatment Including DNR] governed this dispute and whether the 2016 health care proxy was revoked by decedent through conversations with his agents, pursuant to Public Health Law § 2985(a). Significantly, it is not clear from the record whether the treatment prolonged decedent’s life, as neither side submits an expert affidavit. There is also a question as to whether decedent’s health care agents approved the very treatment for which they now seek to hold defendants liable. Lanzetta v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 06554, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: Failure to follow a decedent’s directives in a living will or healthcare proxy can constitute medical malpractice. The directives can be orally revoked.

 

, ,

HERE THE FAILURE TO OPPOSE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS DUE TO NEGLECT WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT VACATUR; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order entered upon plaintiff’s default should not have been granted:

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), “[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person . . . upon the ground of . . . excusable default.” “A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in opposing a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion” . “Law office failure may qualify as a reasonable excuse for a party’s default if the claim of such failure is supported by a credible” and detailed explanation of the default … . The determination as to what constitutes a reasonable excuse is a matter of the court’s discretion, but mere neglect will not suffice … .

… [A] managing attorney at the law firm representing the plaintiff was notified of the February 28, 2018 adjourned deadline to submit opposition papers to the defendants’ motion, and a member of the firm entered a “follow up docket date” for February 7, 2018, “to ensure that the opposition was being handled” … . However, instead of “follow[ing] up with the managing attorney to make sure the opposition was assigned,” the member of the law firm returned the file to the file room. As the member of the law firm affirmed, “[i]t simply was not addressed properly.” … [T]he plaintiff did not move to vacate the order dated August 29, 2018, for approximately eight months, or 253 days, after being served with the order and notice of entry … .

… [T]he plaintiff’s failure to oppose the defendants’ motion was the equivalent of mere neglect and was therefore insufficient to warrant vacatur … . Sauteanu v BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06509, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: A motion to vacate an order entered upon a party’s default may be granted on law-office-failure grounds but not if the matter was simply neglected. Here the plaintiff did not move to vacate the order for 253 days after service of the order and notice of entry. The court found the plaintiff’s failure to oppose the summary judgment was due to neglect and the motion to vacate the order should not have been granted.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy