You are here: / ALTHOUGH THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT TO...

Search Results

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, AND THE AFFIDAVIT QUOTED FROM THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS, THE RECORDS THEMSELVES WERE NOT SUBMITTED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the band did not prove defendant defaulted on the note in this foreclosure action. The affidavit which discussed the relevant business records (apparently quoting from them) was hearsay. The business records themselves were not submitted:

While the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff made the requisite showing that the affiant was familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures with respect to the payment history, the affiant failed to submit any business record substantiating the alleged default … . “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence, a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . “[I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Christiana Trust v Corbin, 2023 NY Slip Op 04298, Second Dept 8-16-23

Practice Point: Where business records are necessary proof (here to prove defendant’s default in a foreclosure action), it is not enough to submit an affidavit quoting from the records, which is hearsay that will not support summary judgment. The records themselves must be authenticated and submitted.

 

/

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHICH WAS NOT PART OF A CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION PROJECT WHEN HE WAS ELECTROCUTED AND FELL FROM A LADDER; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS “CLEANING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND WAS DOING CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the work plaintiff was doing was not covered by Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6). Primosch v Peroxychem, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04285, Fourth Dept 8-11-23. The Fourth Department concluded plaintiff’s work was routine maintenance, not cleaning covered by Labor Law 240(10, and was not done in connection with construction or renovation work. In a separate decision which incorporated the first, two justices disagreed in a dissent, finding that plaintiff’s work was “cleaning” covered by Labor Law 240(1) and was part of construction or renovation work. The dissent lays out in some detail the proof requirements for “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1). Apparently plaintiff was on a ladder cleaning electrical equipment when he was electrocuted and fell from the ladder. Primosch v Peroxychem, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04286, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: The dissent includes a detailed explanation of what constitutes “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).

 

/ , ,

THE GRANDPARENTS’ PETITION FOR VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ABSENT A FULL BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD HEARING (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should not have dismissed the grandparents’ petition for visitation before holding a best interests of the child hearing:

… [T]he court erred in granting respondents’ motion and in terminating the hearing before petitioners had completed the presentation of their case … . “[E]ven where . . . a grandparent has established standing to seek visitation, ‘a grandparent must then establish that visitation is in the best interests of the grandchild . . . Among the factors to be considered are whether the grandparent and grandchild have a preexisting relationship, whether the grandparent supports or undermines the grandchild’s relationship with his or her parents, and whether there is any animosity between the parents and the grandparent’ ” … . Visitation and “custody determinations should ‘[g]enerally’ be made ‘only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry’ ” … , “[u]nless there is sufficient evidence before the court to enable it to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the child[‘s] best interests” … . Upon our review of the record, we conclude that, “[a]bsent a[ full] evidentiary hearing, . . . the court here lacked sufficient evidence . . . to enable it to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the [children]’s best interests” … . We therefore reverse the order, deny the motion, reinstate the petitions, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a full evidentiary hearing on the petitions. DeMarco v Severance, 2023 NY Slip Op 04284, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: The grandparents’ petition for visitation should not have been dismissed absent a full best interests of the child hearing.

 

/ , ,

THE CHILD HAD LIVED WITH HIS GRANDPARENTS FOR HIS ENTIRE LIFE; THE GRANDPARENTS DEMONSTRATED EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSITATING A BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD HEARING PRIOR TO RULING ON MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the grandparents established extraordinary circumstances necessitating a best interests hearing before a ruling on mother’s request for a modification of custody. Mother sought to regain custody of the child who was eight years old and had resided with the grandparents for his entire life:

It is undisputed that the child, who was eight years old at the time of the hearing, had lived with the grandparents for his entire life in the only home he has ever known; the child expressed a strong desire to continue residing with his grandparents and the AFC adheres to that position on appeal; the mother and the father both suffered from severe substance abuse problems for years and were unable to care for the child on their own; the mother failed to contact the child for a period of 18 months before resuming visitation in January 2018; the child’s half-sister also resided with the grandparents and the child developed a sibling relationship with her; and “the grand[parents] ha[ve] taken care of the child for most of his life and provided him with stability” …  Additionally, according to the AFC, the child had “developed a strong emotional bond with the grand[parents]” … .

… [W]e conclude that, “even if the prolonged separation alone is entitled to little significance here, the combination of that factor along with others present on this record sufficiently establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances” … , and that the court’s contrary determination is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.

… [W]e remit the matter to Family Court for a new hearing to determine whether the modifications of the prior order sought by the mother are in the best interests of the child … . Matter of Tuttle v Worthington, 2023 NY Slip Op 04282, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: The child’s grandparents made a showing of extraordinary circumstances requiring a best interests of the child hearing before ruling on mother’s petition for a modification of custody. The child, eight years old, had lived his entire life with his grandparents.

 

/

THE OWNER OF LAND HAS AN ABSOLUTE PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE SURFACE WATERS COLLECTED ON THAT LAND AND CAN DIVERT IT BEFORE IT FLOWS INTO A DEFINITE WATER COURSE (A STREAM, FOR EXAMPLE) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in this dispute over water rights, noted that the Monroe County Water Authority (MCWA) owned surface water on its land and could divert it before it entered a definite water course:

… [W]e agree with MCWA that the court erred in determining that plaintiffs ( a golf course) have riparian rights to the surface waters collecting on MCWA’s property. “The owners of land on a water-course, are not owners of the water which flows in it” … , and “the law has always recognized a wide distinction, between the right of an owner, to deal with surface water falling or collecting on [its] land, and [an owner’s] right in the water of a natural water-course” … . “In such [surface] water, before it leaves [the owner’s] land and becomes part of a definite water-course, the owner of the land is deemed to have an absolute property, and [the owner] may appropriate it to [its] exclusive use, or get rid of it in any way [it] can, provided only that [the owner] does not cast it by drains, or ditches, upon the land of [its] neighbor; and [the owner] may do this, although by so doing [it] prevents the water reaching a natural water-course, as it formerly did, thereby occasioning injury to . . . other proprietors on the stream” … . Webster Golf Club, Inc. v Monroe County Water Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 04280, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: A property owner owns the surface water collected on the property and can divert the surface water before it reaches a definite water course like a stream or river.

 

/ , , , ,

THE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS THE ABILITY TO ASSERT CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES IS APPEALABLE; DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM ASSERTING THE CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES ATTRIBUTING LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TO NON-PARTIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants in this medical malpractice action should not have been precluded from asserting the negligence of non-parties (CPLR article 16 defenses) as an affirmative defenses. The court noted that, although the a ruling on a motion in limine is generally not appealable, a ruling on a motion which seeks to limit the legal theories which can be asserted is appealable:

“Generally, an order ruling [on a motion in limine], even when made in advance of trial on motion papers constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” … . There is, however, “a distinction between an order that ‘limits the admissibility of evidence,’ which is not appealable . . . , and one that ‘limits the legal theories of liability to be tried’ or the scope of the issues at trial, which is appealable” … . * * *

… [D]efendants are entitled to assert their CPLR article 16 defenses regarding the nonparty providers. “As provided in CPLR 1601 (1), a defendant may raise the CPLR article 16 defense regarding a nonparty tortfeasor, provided that the plaintiff could obtain jurisdiction over that party” … . Here, defendants are entitled to raise their pleaded affirmative defenses pursuant to CPLR article 16 … because plaintiff could have sought to maintain an action against the nonparty providers in Supreme Court … .

The crux of the issue on appeal is whether defendants were required, in response to plaintiff’s demands for bills of particulars, to particularize the pleaded CPLR article 16 defense, and thus whether the court properly precluded them from asserting that defense at trial when they did not timely particularize that defense. We conclude that no such particularization was required under the circumstances of this case, and thus that the court erred in precluding defendants from asserting the CPLR article 16 defense at trial. Harris v Rome Mem. Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04273, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: Motions in limine generally are not appealable. But motions seeking to preclude legal theories of liability are appealable.

Practice Point: Under the unique circumstances of this case, defendants in this medical malpractice action should not have been precluded from presenting CPLR article 16 affirmative defenses on the ground the defenses were not particularized in the bill of particulars. It was not clear the demands related to the CPLR article 16 affirmative defenses.

 

/ ,

THE SEARCH WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT MEET THE PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT, THE EVIDENCE GLEANED FROM THE CELL PHONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED; KIDNAPPING SECOND DEGREE IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF KIDNAPPING SECOND DEGREE AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY, THE COUNTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

he Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the search warrant for defendant’s cell phone was overly broad. Therefore the evidence derived from the cell phone should have been suppressed. The court noted that kidnapping in the second degree is an inclusory concurrent count of kidnapping in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony … and that the court upon retrial should submit to the jury the kidnapping in the second degree count in the alternative only:

A warrant must be “specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer” … . To meet the particularity requirement, a warrant must (1) “identify the specific offense for which the police have established probable cause,” (2) “describe the place to be searched,” and (3) “specify the items to be seized by their relation to designated crimes” … . Here, the search warrant simply stated that the police were directed to search defendant’s cellular phone for “digital and/or electronic evidence from August 13, 2016 to August 15, 2016.” The warrant contained no language incorporating any other documents or facts. Significantly, the search of the phone was not restricted by reference to any particular crime. Thus, the search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement and left discretion of the search to the executing officers … . People v Saeli, 2023 NY Slip Op 04268, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: A search warrant for a cell phone which simply states to search for “digital and/or electronic evidence from August 13, 2016 to August 15, 2016” does not meet the particularity requirement (the warrant is overly broad).

Practice Point: Kidnapping in the second degree is an inclusory concurrent count of kidnapping in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony.

 

/ , ,

THE DEFENDANT REHABILITATION FACILITY DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SIGNED THE ADMISSIONS AGREEMENT USING AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT CALLED DOCUSIGN; THEREFORE THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED AND THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gonzalez, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the defendant rehabilitation facility, Dewitt. did not demonstrate plaintiff’s decedent signed the facility’s admission agreements. Therefore the forum selection clause in the agreements should not have been enforced by the motion court. The agreements were allegedly signed using an electronic format called Docusign. But the defendant did not submit any evidence demonstrating how Docusign works and did not submit an affidavit by the representative who allegedly witnessed plaintiff’s signatures. The agreement was not, therefore, authenticated and was not admissible evidence of an agreement to the forum:

… [T]he “burden of proving the existence, terms and validity of a contract rests on the party seeking to enforce it” … . This requires, in the first instance, authentication of the purported writing … . Authentication may be effected by various means, including, for example, by certificate of acknowledgment (see CPLR 4538), by comparison of handwriting (see CPLR 4536), or by the testimony of a person who witnessed the signing of the document … .

Here, …in support of its motion, Dewitt submitted Trimarchi’s [the defendant’s director of admission’s] affidavit, along with copies of the admissions agreements. Trimarchi admitted, however, that she was not present during the signing of the admissions agreement. Trimarchi attested only to her understanding of how admissions agreements were usually signed; she had no actual knowledge of how the agreements bearing decedent’s name came to be signed. Moreover, Trimarchi did not describe any protocols governing the use of Docusign. Accordingly, her affidavit cannot serve to authenticate the agreements … . Dewitt did not seek to authenticate decedent’s signature by any other means, such as a certificate of acknowledgment or a handwriting exemplar. Since Dewitt failed to authenticate the agreements, it correspondingly failed to show that the forum selection clauses set forth in those documents are enforceable against plaintiff … . Knight v New York & Presbyt. Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04258, First Dept 8-10-23

Practice Point: This case illustrates the need to authenticate signatures which involve some sort of electronic signing format. Here the defendant did not demonstrate how the electronic signature format worked and therefore did not authenticate plaintiff’s decedent’s signature. The forum selection clause in the agreement, therefore, could not be enforced.

 

/ ,

A TITLE HOLDER WHO DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE BUT DID SIGN THE MORTGAGE IS ENTITLED TO THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a defendant (Courtney) who did not sign the note but did sign the mortgage was a “borrower” entitled to notice of the foreclosure pursuant to RPAPL 1304:

… [I]t is undisputed that the plaintiff failed to serve Courtney [defendant] with notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304, and, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, he was entitled to such notice as a “borrower” within the meaning of that statute. Although Courtney did not sign the note, both of the defendants were title owners of the subject property and each executed the mortgage as a “borrower.” “Where, as here, a homeowner defendant is referred to as a ‘borrower’ in the mortgage instrument and, in that capacity, agrees to pay amounts due under the note, that defendant is a ‘borrower’ for the purposes of RPAPL 1304, notwithstanding . . . any ambiguity created by a provision in the mortgage instrument to the effect that parties who did not sign the underlying note are not personally obligated to pay the sums secured” … . Since Courtney “signed the mortgage as a ‘borrower’ and, in that capacity, agreed to pay the amounts due under the note, [he] was entitled to . . . notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304” … . Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v Carney, 2023 NY Slip Op 04231, Second Dept 8-9-23

Practice Point: A title owner who does not sign the note but signs the mortgage is a “borrower” entitled to notice of the foreclosure.

 

/ , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE IF THE BANK HAD PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT, THE BANK ESTABLISHED STANDING (NOTE AFFIXED TO THE COMPLAINT), THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 AND 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a defendant was properly served, the bank demonstrated standing to foreclose by affixing the note to the complaint, and the bank failed to demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1303 and 1304:

Ordinarily, a process server’s affidavit of service gives rise to a presumption of proper service … . However, “a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the affidavit of service and necessitates a hearing” … . “If an issue regarding service turns upon a question of credibility, a hearing should be held to render a determination on this issue” * * *

The plaintiff established, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action by submitting in support of its motion a copy of the note, endorsed in blank, that was annexed to the certificate of merit filed with the summons and complaint at the time the action was commenced … . Where, as here, the note is affixed to the complaint, “‘it is unnecessary to give factual details of the delivery in order to establish that possession was obtained prior to a particular date'” * * *

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1303  … . RPAPL 1303 requires that the party foreclosing a mortgage on residential property deliver, along with the summons and complaint, a notice titled “Notice to Tenants of Buildings in Foreclosure” to any tenant of the property by certified mail, if the identity of the tenant is known to the foreclosing party … . * * *

… [T]he affiant did not state that he had personal knowledge of the purported mailings, and the documents that he relied upon to affirm that the mailings took place failed to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notices were actually mailed … by both certified and first-class mail. Since the plaintiff “failed to provide proof of the actual mailing, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure,” the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . U.S Bank N.A. v 22-33 Brookhaven, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04228, Second Dept 8-9-23

Practice Point: Here a defendant raised a question of fact whether he was properly served, requiring a hearing.

Practice Point: In this foreclosure action the bank established standing by affixing the note to the complaint.

Practice Point: The bank’s failure to strictly comply with RPAPL 1303 or 1304 precludes summary judgment.

 

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy