You are here: / THE RIGHT TO SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE RIGHT TO SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) BASED ON PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR WAS WAIVED BY DEFENDANT’S THREE-YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING THE MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant, by waiting three years, waived the seek dismissal of the foreclosure action based on plaintiff bank’s failure to move for a default judgment within one year:

“A ‘defendant may waive the right to seek dismissal pursuant to [CPLR 3215(c)] by his or her conduct'” … . Here, the defendant did not move pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him until nearly three years after the defendant’s attorney filed a notice of appearance on his behalf. Under these circumstances, the defendant waived his right to seek dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) by his active participation in the litigation … . Moreover, the defendant never sought to vacate his default in answering the complaint. Thus, he was precluded from raising his proffered defenses of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Carapella, 2023 NY Slip Op 03844, Second Dept 7-19-23

Practice Point: The right to dismiss an action based on plaintiff’s failure to move for a default judgment within a year of the default (CPLR 3215(c) can be waived by defendant’s participation in the action. Here defendant did not move to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) until three years after defendant’s attorney filed a notice of appearance.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS OUTSIDE HIS RESIDENCE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND A PROTECTIVE SWEEP WAS CONDUCTED INSIDE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE; ITEMS OBSERVED IN THE RESIDENCE WERE LATER SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT; BECAUSE THE POLICE HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT OTHERS WERE PRESENT IN THE RESIDENCE, THE PROTECTIVE SWEEP OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE OBSERVED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department held that items observed by the police during a “protective sweep” of his residence should have been suppressed. At the time of defendant’s arrest and the protective sweep defendant was outside of his residence. The police had no reason to believe others were inside the residence:

Upon a lawful arrest, the police may conduct a limited protective sweep of the premises, but this ‘is justified only when the police have articulable facts upon which to believe that there is a person present who may pose a danger to those on the scene’ … . The purported protective sweep conducted here was improper, as there were no articulable facts supporting a belief that any other person was present inside the trailer, let alone a person who could pose a threat to those on the scene … . Neither the search warrant nor the suppression hearing testimony reflected that anyone other than defendant was ever observed or believed to be inside the trailer, and there was nothing referenced that would serve to indicate that there was any lingering threat. People v Hadlock, 2023 NY Slip Op 03819, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: The defendant was arrested outside his residence and the police conducted a protective sweep of the residence which led to the seizure of contraband observed during the sweep. Because the police had no reason to believe anyone else was present, the sweep of the residence was not justified and the observed items should have been suppressed.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE WAS NOT CONCLUSORY OR SPECULATIVE AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s expert evidence in this medical malpractice case was not conclusory or speculative and was sufficient to raise a question of fact. The decision is fact-specific and far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [T]he internist [plaintiff’s expert] specifically opined that earlier intubation …  would have produced a “70% chance of survival” by preventing the anoxic brain injury and allowing the sepsis, respiratory distress and ARDS symptoms to be treated. The internist also stated that earlier intubation would have made it “more likely than not” that decedent’s “clinical condition would have improved.” When giving plaintiffs the benefit of all reasonable inferences as the nonmoving parties, a rational juror could infer that decedent would have had a better chance at recovering from the necrotizing pancreatitis and related sepsis and ARDS if she had been intubated … prior to the second rapid response event … . Thus, we conclude that the internist’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation, warranting denial of defendants’ summary judgment motion … . Sovocool v Cortland Regional Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 03826, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: Although this med mal decision is fact-specific, it provides some insight into when an expert’s affidavit can be rejected as conclusory or speculative. The affidavit here was deemed sufficient to raise a question of fact.

 

/ , ,

THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION SUBMIT A SECOND VOTING-DISTRICT REDISTRICTING PLAN AFTER THE REJECTION OF THE FIRST (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) was required by statute to submit a second voting-district redistricting plan after the rejection of the first. The opinion provides a detailed analysis of the constitutional, legislative and administrative measures taken to reform the manner in which voting-district maps are drawn:

The IRC had an indisputable duty under the NY Constitution to submit a second set of maps upon the rejection of its first set (see NY Const, art III, § 4 [b]). The language of NY Constitution, article III, § 4 makes clear that this duty is mandatory, not discretionary. It is undisputed that the IRC failed to perform this duty. Matter of Hoffmann v New York State Ind. Redistricting Commission, 2023 NY Slip Op 03828, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: The constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements for the approval of a voting-district redistricting plan are explained in depth.

 

/ , ,

AFTER DECLARING A MISTRIAL, THE JUDGE DID NOT DISMISS THE INDICTMENT OR AUTHORIZE A NEW INDICTMENT; THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS IN THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WHICH WERE IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT (WHICH WAS STILL VALID) THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE ALLOWED TO STAND; THE CONVICTION ON THE COUNT WHICH WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT WAS REVERSED; DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT ATTACH AFTER A MISTRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on one of three counts, determined the superseding indictment which came down after a mistrial on the original indictment was a nullity because the trial judge did not dismiss the original indictment or authorize the People to re-present a new indictment. The issue was not preserved and the Third Department considered it in the interest of justice. Because defendant had been convicted of two counts which were in the original indictment, those convictions were allowed to stand because the original indictment was never dismissed. The Third Department noted that double jeopardy principles do not attach to a mistrial. The conviction on the third count, which was not in the original indictment, was reversed:

… [B]ecause the court did not, upon declaring the mistrial on the original indictment, “dismiss the indictment or authorize the People to re-present a new indictment to the [g]rand [j]ury[,] . . . the People were limited to retrying defendant upon the same accusatory instrument” … ; thus, the superseding indictment is a nullity … . However, reversal of the judgment of conviction is not required given that both indictments contained two identical counts … . * * * This conclusion, however, does not extend to count 1 of the superseding indictment, charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree … , which was not charged in the original indictment; therefore, we reverse that conviction. To the extent that defendant raises double jeopardy concerns, as the first trial ended in a mistrial, double jeopardy principles do not attach … . People v Gentry, 2023 NY Slip Op 03818, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: If, after a mistrial, the judge does not dismiss the indictment or authorize a new indictment, the original indictment remains. Double jeopardy does not attach.

Practice Point: If, after a mistrial, a superseding indictment is brought without the trial court’s authorization, the superseding indictment is a nullity and the original indictment remains in effect.

 

/ , , , ,

PLAINTIFF, WORKING FOR A SUBSIDIARY OF VERIZON, WAS INJURED LAYING A CABLE UNDER A CITY STREET; THE MAJORITY HELD THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND VERIZON AND/OR THE ISSUANCE OF A CITY PERMIT RENDERED THE CITY A PROPER DEFENDANT; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, over a two-justice dissent, determined the City was not entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law case. Plaintiff was working for a subsidiary of Verizon (Empire City) laying a conduit in a trench in the street when a backhoe pushed a metal plate onto his foot. The City argued it was not an owner under the Labor Law, had no notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and there was no nexus between the City and and the work performed by Verizon. The majority held there were questions of fact about the existence of a franchise agreement between the City and Verizon, and whether a permit for the work had been issued by the City. Although the “lack of a nexus” argument was raised for the first time in reply, the majority held the issue raised a question of law and was properly considered by the motion court:

The witness’s lack of knowledge renders his testimony inconclusive and speculative as to whether Empire City was working without a permit on the day plaintiff was injured, warranting denial of summary judgment … . * * *

… [T]here remain triable issues of fact as to whether there existed a nexus between plaintiff and the City … . Furthermore, plaintiff sought certified copies of the franchise agreements for both Verizon and Empire City as part of discovery and defendant failed to provide them. Thus, the City’s challenge to the franchise documentation as being unauthenticated should have been rejected by the court, as copies of the documents remained in defendant’s exclusive possession and control but were not provided to plaintiff …  Powell v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03843, First Dept 7-17-23

Practice Point: The plaintiff was employed by a subsidiary of Verizon and was injured laying a conduit in a trench under a City street. The City claimed it had no nexus to the work done by Verizon. The majority held questions of fact about the existence of a franchise agreement between the City and Verizon and the issuance of a permit by the City precluded summary judgment in favor of the City. There was a two-justice dissent.

 

/

AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT AVAILABLE WHERE A CONTRACT COVERS THE RELEVANT ISSUE, EVEN IF THE DEFENDANTS ARE NONSIGNATORIES; UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS NOT A “CATCH ALL” CAUSE OF ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the existence of a contract covering the relevant issue precluded the unjust enrichment cause of action, even though defendants were not signatories to the contract:

“The existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter” … . It makes no difference that defendants are not parties to the contracts governing the dispute, as “a nonsignatory to a contract cannot be held liable where there is an express contract covering the same subject matter” … . * * *

… “[U]njust enrichment is not a catchall cause of action . . . . It is available only in unusual situations when, though the defendant has not breached a contract nor committed a recognized tort, circumstances create an equitable obligation running from the defendant to the plaintiff” … . Here, plaintiff states a claim against defendants for recognized torts, obviating the need for the creation of that obligation. Iberdrola Energy Projects v MUFG Union Bank, N.A., 2023 NY Slip Op 03841, First Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: If a contract covers the relevant issue, unjust enrichment is not available, even if the defendants are nonsignatories. Unjust enrichment is not a “catch all” cause of action and is appropriate only when there is no actionable breach of contract and the relevant issue is not otherwise addressed by other causes of action (here certain torts).

 

/ ,

A TEACHER MAY NOT ACCUMULATE CREDIT TOWARD TENURE IN ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR WORK AS A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER IN ANOTHER DISTRICT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ford, determined a teacher may not accumulate credit towards tenure from working as a substitute teacher in a different district:

The narrow issue presented on this appeal, apparently one of first impression for an appellate court in this State, is whether a teacher may accumulate credit towards tenure, also known as “Jarema credit,” pursuant to Education Law § 3012, for time spent teaching as a regular substitute teacher in a district other than the district in which the teacher is seeking tenure. … [W]e conclude that a teacher is only entitled to “Jarema credit” for regular substitute service if said service was completed in the district in which the teacher is seeking tenure. Matter of DeNigris v Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 03783, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: A teacher may not accumulate credit toward tenure in one school district for time working as a substitute teacher in another district.

 

/ ,

THE NONHEARSAY ALLEGATIONS IN THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE “PHYSICAL INJURY” ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD RENDERING THE PETITION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, determined the factual part of the petition alleging an act which would constitute assault third if done by an adult was jurisdictionally defective because it did not set forth every element of the offense. Specifically the petition did not sufficiently allege “physical injury:”

“For a juvenile delinquency petition, or a count thereof, to be sufficient on its face, the factual part of the petition or of any supporting depositions must set forth sworn, nonhearsay allegations sufficient to establish, if true, every element of each crime charged and the alleged delinquent’s commission thereof” … . Such allegations must be set forth in the petition or the supporting depositions (see Family Ct Act § 311.2[3] …). “The failure to comply with this requirement constitutes a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect that deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition or count” … . Here, neither the petition nor the supporting depositions provided sworn, nonhearsay allegations as to a physical injury sustained by the complainant named in count 5 (see Penal Law § 120.00[2] …). Accordingly, that count was jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed … . Matter of Yacere D., 2023 NY Slip Op 03781, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: A petition in a juvenile delinquency must include nonhearsay allegations supporting every element of the underlying offense or it is jurisdictionally defective. Here the allegations of physical injury in the context of assault third were insufficient.

 

/ , ,

A STORM DRAIN ALLEGEDLY CAUSED FLOODING ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENT DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE VILLAGE ACCRUED WHEN THE STORM DRAIN WAS INSTALLED, NOT WHEN THE FLOODING OCCURRED, AND WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this action stemming from flooding cause by a village storm drain, determined the negligent design cause of action against the village was time-barred because it accrued at the time the storm drain was constructed. However the trespass and negligent maintenance causes of action were timely:

General Municipal Law § 50-i provides that tort actions against municipalities “shall be commenced within one year and ninety days after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based.” Here, the plaintiffs alleged in the third cause of action that the Village’s negligent design of the storm drain system caused or contributed to the alleged property damage. Under these circumstances, “the happening of the event upon which the claim [was] based” …  was the design and installation of the storm drain system, which occurred many years prior to the commencement of this action … . Methal v Village of Ardsley, 2023 NY Slip Op 03775, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: Here a storm drain flooded plaintiffs’ property. The negligent maintenance and trespass causes of action accrued at or about the time of the flooding and were timely. But the negligent design cause of action accrued when the storm drain was installed and was time-barred.

 

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