You are here: / A DEADLINE SET IN A TIME-IS-OF-THE-ESSENCE LETTER CAN BE WAIVED ORALLY,...

Search Results

/ ,

A DEADLINE SET IN A TIME-IS-OF-THE-ESSENCE LETTER CAN BE WAIVED ORALLY, OR EVEN BY CONDUCT ALONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant orally waived the deadline for the real estate transaction set in a time-is-of-the-essence letter:

… “[I]t is well settled, in New York, that an oral waiver of the time for the sale of real property will be given effect” … . [Plaintiff’s] assertion, made under the penalties of perjury, that he was assured by the defendant’s president that the plaintiff would not be held in default in the event that it failed to close the transaction on May 15, 2019, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s president made a statement … that operated as a waiver of the defendant’s right to enforce the May 15, 2019 deadline for the closing. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, in order for such a waiver to occur, it was not necessary that the [time-is-of-the-essence] letter be withdrawn in a formal communication from the defendant’s attorney. A waiver of the right to timely performance under a contract “need not be in writing in order to be valid and enforceable” … . Such a waiver may occur even without an oral statement, such as the one that was allegedly made in this case, and may instead be inferred solely from a party’s conduct … . LG723, LLC v Royal Dev., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02653, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: A deadline in a time-is-of-the-essence letter can be waived orally or by conduct alone.

 

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH THERE IS MERIT TO THE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THEY WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION IN THESE TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WHERE THEIR PROPERTIES WERE TRANSFERRED TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESTORE UNDER NYC’S THIRD PARTY TRANSFER PROGRAM, THE DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO ANSWER IN THE TAX FORECLOSURE ACTIONS AND THEIR FAILURE TO REDEEM WITHIN FOUR MONTHS PRECLUDED ANY RECOVERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, determined the tax foreclosures on defendants’ properties were valid and the transfer of the properties under New York City’s Third Party Transfer Program (TPT program) was proper. The court noted that, under the current procedure, property worth $2 million could be lost for nonpayment of a small water bill and the owner would receive no compensation. Here the city demonstrated it fulfilled the tax-foreclosure notification requirements and defendants did not answer and did not attempt to redeem the property within the four-month redemption period:

… [T]he defendants’ motions were time-barred due to their failure to move to vacate the judgment of foreclosure or to take any action to redeem the subject properties within the four-month redemption period … . In light of the presumption of regularity created by the entry of the judgment of foreclosure against the subject properties (see Administrative Code § 11-411), which became conclusive four months after the entry of the judgment …, there is no basis to consider the defendants’ contentions that the subject properties were not distressed … . Further, this Court has held that where, as here, the defendant property owners failed to interpose a timely answer or to redeem the property during the four-month period following the entry of the judgment of foreclosure, they are not entitled to “compensation” for any “surplus money as a result of the foreclosure and transfer of the property” under the TPT program … . Thus, while we emphasize that there is potential merit to the defendants’ contentions that they were deprived of their properties without just compensation, and that the transfer of a property which was not distressed under the TPT program was improper, we are constrained to conclude that those issues are not reviewable by this Court under the circumstances presented. Matter of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 53, 2023 NY Slip Op 02711, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: The court acknowledged that the city’s transfer of defendants’ properties to Neighborhood Restore under NYC’s Third Party Transfer program may have deprived defendants of just compensation for the taking of their properties, the fact that defendants did not answer in the tax foreclosure proceedings and did not attempt to redeem the properties within the four-month redemption period precluded any recovery.

 

/ , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTE; EVIDENCE FIRST OFFERED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate it had standing to foreclose because the evidence the allonge was firmly attached to the note was insufficient. The court noted Supreme Court should not have considered evidence first submitted in reply:

Although the vice president of loan documentation attested in her affidavit, based on her review of the plaintiff’s business records, that an allonge containing an endorsement in blank by “Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation As Receiver of AmTrust Bank fka Ohio Savings Bank” was attached to the consolidated note, she did not aver that the allonge was “firmly affixed” to the consolidated note within the meaning of UCC 3-202(2). “Although the foundation for the admission of a business record may be provided by the testimony of the custodian, it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Moreover, the affidavit was sworn to on January 9, 2020, subsequent to the commencement of this action, and the affiant did not state when she reviewed the copy of the note and the allonge. Thus, her affidavit was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the allonge was “so firmly affixed [to the consolidated note] as to become a part thereof” (UCC 3-202[2]) at the time of commencement of either the 2014 action or the 2015 action … . Nor did the affidavit of the employee of the plaintiff’s attorneys establish compliance with the requirements of UCC 3-202(2), as it made no reference to an allonge to the consolidated note.

Affidavits submitted by the plaintiff with its reply papers, asserting that the allonge was attached to the consolidated note at the time of commencement of the 2015 action, should not have been considered by the Supreme Court, since a party moving for summary judgment “cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Mitselmakher, 2023 NY Slip Op 02709, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: To demonstrate standing to foreclose the bank must show the allonge was “firmly attached” to the note within the meaning of UCC 3-303(2). The bank’s evidence here was insufficient.

Practice Point: Evidence first submitted in reply should not be considered in support of the prima facie burden for summary judgment.

 

/ , , ,

THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER THE NECESSARY PARTY CAN BE SUMMONED AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE ACTION CAN CONTINUE IN THE PARTY’S ABSENCE; THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMONING THE NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, explained the proper procedure where it is alleged the complaint should be dismissed for failure to include a necessary party, here the failure to include an estate in a foreclosure action. First the court should determine whether the party can be summoned, noting that the expiration of the statute of limitations is does not bar summoning the party. Second, if the party cannot be summoned the court should determine whether the action can continue in the party’s absence:

“Pursuant to RPAPL 1311 (1), ‘necessary defendants’ in a mortgage foreclosure action include, among others, ‘[e]very person having an estate or interest in possession, or otherwise, in the property as tenant in fee, for life, by the courtesy, or for years, and every person entitled to the reversion, remainder, or inheritance of the real property, or of any interest therein or undivided share thereof, after the determination of a particular estate therein'” … . “Particularly where, as here, the plaintiff seeks a deficiency judgment, and alleges a default in payment subsequent to the death of the deceased mortgagor, the estate of the mortgagor is a necessary party to the foreclosure action” … .

When a necessary party has not been made a party and is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the court, the proper remedy is not dismissal of the complaint, but rather for the court to order that the necessary party be summoned (see CPLR 1001[b] …). Contrary to the intervenors’ contention, the Supreme Court’s ability to direct joinder of a representative of [the] estate at this juncture is not affected by the purported running of the statute of limitations, because the expiration of a statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional defect … .  … [W]hen jurisdiction over an absent necessary party “can be obtained only by [that party’s] consent or appearance, the court, when justice requires, may allow the action to proceed without [that party],” upon consideration of various enumerated factors (CPLR 1001[b] …). U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v Germoso, 2023 NY Slip Op 02704, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Here an estate was a necessary party in the foreclosure action. The proper procedure is for the court to determine if the party can be summoned, and, if not, whether the action can continue in the party’s absence. The fact that the statute of limitations had run did not preclude summoning the estate.

 

/ , ,

THE PERSON WHO ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAW FIRM PLAINTIFF WORKED FOR; PLAINTIFF COULD RECOVER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM THE LAW FIRM AND DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY FROM THE OWNER, WHO WAS A COEMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff could recover for assault and battery against a coemployee (Levoritz) even though plaintiff had been awarded Workers’ Compensation benefits from his employer for the same assault and battery. Plaintiff was employed by defendant law firm at the time of the alleged assault and battery and the law firm was owned by Levortiz:

The Supreme Court, however, erred in granting Levoritz’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Contrary to Levoritz’s contention, Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 does not bar an employee who has accepted workers’ compensation benefits from suing a coemployee who has committed an intentional assault against him or her … . Additionally, Levoritz failed to establish, prima facie, that he was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident, and was not engaged in a willful or intentional tort … .

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross-motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action to recover damages for assault and battery insofar as asserted against Levoritz. The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action to recover damages for assault and battery by showing, through the submission of his affidavit, that there was bodily contact, that the contact was offensive, that Levoritz intended to make the contact without the plaintiff’s consent, and that Levoritz placed the plaintiff in “imminent apprehension of harmful contact” … . In opposition, Levoritz failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Tarasiuk v Levoritz, 2023 NY Slip Op 02698, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Here the person who assaulted plaintiff was the owner of the law firm plaintiff worked for. Plaintiff could recover Workers’ Compensation benefits from the law firm and damages from the owner of the firm, who was plaintiff’s coemployee.

 

/ ,

A CON EDISION TRANSFORMER MINI PAD WHICH ENCROACHED SIX INCHES ONTO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY WAS A TRESPASS ENTITLING PLAINTIFFS TO NOMINAL DAMAGES; THE STICKER ON THE TRANSFORMER WARNING TO STAY THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE TRANSFORMER WAS A NUISANCE, AN INTANGIBLE INTRUSION, NOT A TRESPASS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the installation of a transformer mini pad by Con Edison which encroached six inches onto plaintiffs’ property was a trespass and defendant was liable for nominal damages of $1. The sticker on the mini pad warning people to stay three feet away was not a trespass. Rather the warning was an intangible intrusion constituting a nuisance:

 “‘[A] trespass claim represents an injury to the right of possession'” … . “[C]ourts have precluded trespass claims where the entry or intrusion was intangible, such as the occurrence of vibrations, shading of a plaintiff’s property, or a permeating odor or vapors of gasoline” … . “Generally, intangible intrusions, such as by noise, odor, or light alone, are treated as nuisances, not trespass [because] they interfere with nearby property owners’ use and enjoyment of their land, not with their exclusive possession of it”… .

“[N]ominal damages are presumed from a trespass even where the property owner has suffered no actual injury to his or her possessory interest” … . “Nominal damages are defined as a trifling sum awarded to a plaintiff in an action where there is no substantial loss or injury to be compensated, but still the law recognizes a technical invasion of his [or her] rights or a breach of the defendant’s duty” … . “These are formal damages as distinguished from real or substantial ones” … . Shrage v Con Edison Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 02694, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: A Con Edison transformer which encroached six inches onto plaintiffs’ land was a trespass entitled plaintiffs to nominal damages.

Practice Point: The sticker on the transformer warning to stay three feet away was a nuisance, an intangible intrusion, not a trespass.

 

/ , ,

THE SOLE MEMBER OF AN LLC WHICH OWNS THE PROPERTY HAS AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY; AN INSURER WHICH ACCEPTS PAYMENT ON A POLICY AFTER LEARNING OF THE INSURED’S ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS WAIVES THE RIGHT TO RESCIND THE POLICY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff, as the sole member of an LLC which owned the property, had an insurable interest in the property; and (2) defendant’s accepting payment on the policy after defendant was aware of plaintiff’s alleged misrepresentations waived defendant’s right to rescind the policy:

… [A]s the sole owner of the LLC, the plaintiff had an insurable interest in the subject property, since destruction of the subject property would necessarily cause economic detriment to the plaintiff (see Insurance Law § 3401 …).

… “The continued acceptance of premiums by an insurance carrier after learning of sufficient facts which allow for the rescission of the policy, constitutes a waiver of the right to rescind” … . Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the defendant waived its right to assert the plaintiff’s misrepresentations as a basis for rescinding the policy, since the defendant renewed the policy and accepted a premium payment after it discovered the misrepresentations. Sabharwal v Hyundai Mar. & Fire Ins. Co., Ltd., 2023 NY Slip Op 02690, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: The sole member of an LLC which owns real property has an insurable interest in the property.

Practice Point: An insurer which accepts payment on a policy after learning of the insured’s alleged misrepresentations waives the right to rescind the policy.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO A LEVEL ONE BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN AT LIBERTY FOR 17 YEARS WITHOUT REOFFENDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled a downward departure to level one because he had been at liberty for 17 years without reoffending:

In light of the purpose of SORA, which is to assess the risk that the offender poses while at liberty, lengthy periods during which the defendant has been at liberty after the offense are significant in determining the risk of reoffense and the danger posed in the event of reoffense … . Since these periods are not taken into account in the risk assessment instrument, they are a permissible ground for departure … . Here, the defendant was released from prison for the underlying sex offense in 2002. In the time between his release and the SORA hearing, which was held in 2019, the defendant was at liberty for approximately 17 years without reoffending. In light of the lengthy amount of time without reoffense, we designate the defendant a level one sex offender … . People v Gurley, 2023 NY Slip Op 02686, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant was entitled to a downward departure to a level one sex offender because he had been at liberty for 17 years without reoffending.

 

/ ,

THE WITNESS’S TRIAL TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT SEE THE PERPETRATOR’S FACE AND DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT FIRE A GUN MERELY FAILED TO CORROBORATE OR BOLSTER THE PEOPLE’S CASE, IT DID NOT CONTRADICT OR DISPROVE ANY EVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THE WITNESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the prosecutor should not have been allowed to impeach her own witness because the witness’s testimony merely failed to corroborate or bolster the People’s case, it did not contradict or disprove any evidence. The witness testified he did not see the perpetrator’s face and did not see defendant fire a gun:

” … [B]efore a party may impeach its own witness, the testimony on a ‘material fact’ must ‘tend[ ] to disprove the party’s position or affirmatively damage[ ] the party’s case'” … . “Trial testimony that the witness has no knowledge of or cannot recall a particular event, whether truthful or not, does not affirmatively damage the People’s case” … . People v Sams, 2023 NY Slip Op 02684, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: In order to impeach their own witness, the witness’s testimony must have contradicted or disproved the People’s case. Here the witness’s testimony that he did not see the perpetrator’s face and did not see the defendant fire a gun merely failed to corroborate or bolster the People’s case, it did not disprove or contradict any evidence. Even if the testimony was untrue, the People should not have been allowed to impeach their own witness.

 

/

A SENTENCE CANNOT BE ALTERED AFTER THE DEFENDANT HAS BEGUN SERVING IT; HERE THE AMENDED UNIFORM SENTENCE AND COMMITMENT FORM DID NOT MERELY CORRECT AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE, IT ALTERED THE SENTENCE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the amended uniform sentence and commitment form which was filed after defendant had begun serving his sentence was invalid. Defendant was originally sentenced for three felonies, two of which were to run consecutively with the third. By operation of law, the two which were to run consecutively with the third ran concurrently with each other. The amended uniform sentence and commitment form purported to have all three sentences run consecutively:

… [T]he defendant correctly contends that his legal sentence was improperly altered, in violation of CPL 430.10, by the amended uniform sentence and commitment form after he began serving his sentence. At sentencing, the County Court identified the sentences which were to run consecutively when it stated that, “[i]n other words, [the attempted murder count] and the [assault count] are to run consecutively to the [intentional murder count].” Contrary to the People’s contention, the court did not, at any point during the sentencing proceeding, specify how the attempted murder count and the assault count were to run with respect to each other. As a result, the sentences imposed on those counts run concurrently as a matter of law (see Penal Law § 70.25[1][a] …). Thus, the original uniform sentence and commitment form reflected the sentence unambiguously imposed by the court during the sentencing proceeding. The record does not indicate that the court misspoke or that its failure to specify that the terms of imprisonment imposed on the intentional murder, attempted murder and assault counts were all to run consecutively to each other was accidental. Therefore, the amended uniform sentence and commitment form effected an improper alteration of the defendant’s sentence in violation of CPL 430.10 … . People v Parsley, 2023 NY Slip Op 02683, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Although a court may correct an inadvertent sentencing mistake, it cannot alter a sentence once defendant has begun serving it. Here there was no indication the original sentence, indicating the sentences for two of the three felonies were to run concurrently, was a mistake, so the amended sentence, indicating all three sentences were to run consecutively, was invalid.

 

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