You are here: / PLAINTIFF IN THIS STRICT FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO...

Search Results

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS STRICT FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR REFORECLOSURE UNDER RPAPL 1503; REFORECLOSURE IS AN OPTION WHEN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE MAY BE VOID OR VOIDABLE AS AGAINST ANY PERSON (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint in this strict foreclosure action to add a cause of action for reforeclosure under RPAPL 1503:

Section 1503 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law establishes an action in reforeclosure where an original foreclosure judgment, sale, or conveyance may be void or voidable as against any person. The statute grants a purchaser the right to maintain an action “to determine the right of any person to set aside such judgment, sale or conveyance or to enforce an equity of redemption or to recover possession of the property, or the right of any junior mortgagee to foreclose a mortgage” (id.). “Such action may be maintained even though an action against the defendant to foreclose the mortgage under which the judgment, sale or conveyance was made, or to extinguish a right of redemption, would be barred by the statutes of limitation” … . Bank of N.Y. v Karistina Enters., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05828, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: Reforeclosure under RPAPL 1503 may be available when the original mortgage is void or voidable as against any person.

 

/ , , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE HOLDER OF THE NOTE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT BECAUSE THE NOTE ITSELF WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank should not have been awarded summary judgment in this foreclosure action because it did not demonstrate standing to foreclose:

… [T]here was no evidence that the plaintiff is the assignee of the note, and a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time this action was commenced. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code (see UCC 3-104[2][d] …) “holder” is “the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession” (UCC 1-201[b] [21][A] …). In the present case, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the note was properly specially endorsed by an allonge “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof” when it came into the possession of the plaintiff (UCC 3-202[2] …).

Further, the affidavit of Verdooren [loan servicer employee] and the accompanying business records were insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s standing … . 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” ( … see CPLR 4518[a]). Here, although Verdooren stated that Wells Fargo had possession of the note on the plaintiff’s behalf at the time the action was commenced, the documents attached to Verdooren’s affidavit failed to establish this fact. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v Andersen, 2022 NY Slip Op 05827, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: If the defendant raises the lack-of-standing defense in a foreclosure action, the bank must demonstrate the plaintiff was the assignee of the note and the note was in its possession when the action was brought. Here the plaintiff did not show the note was properly endorsed by an attached allonge when it came into plaintiff’s possession and the note was not attached to the loan servicer’s affidavit, rendering the affidavit hearsay.

 

/ , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAITED UNTIL AFTER THE PROSECUTOR MADE SEVERAL ARGUABLY IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION BEFORE OBJECTING “TO ALL OF THIS;” THE OBJECTION WAS DEEMED UNTIMELY, VAGUE, AMBIGUOUS, GENERAL AND NONSPECIFIC; THEREFORE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined defense counsel did not make timely objections to remarks made by the prosecutor in summation. After several arguably improper comments by the prosecutor, defense counsel objected “to all of this.” The judge struck the only last of the prosecutor’s remarks. After the jury was charged and deliberating, defense counsel raised objections to several other remarks made by the prosecutor which were denied as untimely. The Second Department agreed the objections were not timely or specific and affirmed defendant’s conviction:

The objection of defense counsel most relevant to this appeal was to “all of this,” which was interposed only after the prosecutor likened a hypodermic needle to a dangerous instrument. The objection, as interposed, suffers from a number of problems in failing to preserve the issues now raised on appeal. First, the objection was vague and ambiguous. Second, it was untimely. Third, its language was general and nonspecific. The preservation rules … , requiring that objections be timely and specific rather than untimely and general, are basic, well-understood, and time-tested concepts, which should prompt no dispute in their application to this appellate record.

… The prosecutor had been speaking at some length, for a total of 28 uninterrupted sentences, before defense counsel interposed the objection at issue here. …

… As to [the] objection and its timing, the Supreme Court understandably treated it as applying to the last occurring statement of the prosecutor … . …

… For preservation, the defendant’s objection was … general, as it did not identify to the Supreme Court any particular argument or remark by the prosecutor or any specific basis. The basis for the objection was not explained, rendering the entire objection general and insufficient for preservation purposes … . …

Defense counsel initiated further colloquy with the Supreme Court about the subject objection after the jury had been charged and after the jury had begun its deliberations. By then, counsel’s objection was clearly untimely, as there was no longer an opportunity for the court to promptly make a curative ruling to the jury, had one even been indicated. People v Adorno, 2022 NY Slip Op 05856, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: The Second Department used this case to explain that, in order to preserve issues for appeal, objections must be timely and specific such that the trial court has the opportunity to address them. Here the prosecutor made several arguably improper remarks in summation before defense counsel objected “to all of this.” Defense counsel didn’t specify the nature of the objections until after the jury started deliberations. That was too late.

 

/ , ,

THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff bank did not not submit sufficient proof of compliance with the notice-of-default provisions of RPAPL 1304. Among other deficiencies, the documents necessary to prove the notice was mailed were not attached to the affidavit stating the mailing requirements were met:

… [P]laintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Although Crystal Jean McClelland, a vice president of loan documentation for the plaintiff, stated in her affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened. The plaintiff failed to provide any documentation from the United States Post Office demonstrating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail. Further, while McClelland attested that she was familiar with the business records maintained by the plaintiff, had personal knowledge of the operation of and the circumstances surrounding the preparation, maintenance, distribution, and retrieval of records in the plaintiff’s record-keeping system, and had knowledge of how the plaintiff drafted, generated, triggered, sent, and stored letters in the servicing process, she did not present proof of a standard office mailing procedure by the plaintiff designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed. 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 establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kowalski, 2022 NY Slip Op 05887, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: Another example of what the banks get wrong when trying to prove strict compliance with the foreclosure notice-of-default provisions of RPAPL 1304 at the summary judgment stage.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANTS’ VAN FAILED TO YIELD TO APPELLANT’S VEHICLE, WHICH HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHEN DEFENDANTS’ VAN ATTEMPTED TO MERGE INTO APPELLANT’S LANE; THE DASH CAM VIDEO DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT-DRIVER VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; APPELLANT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a dash cam video demonstrated that defendants’ van failed to yield to appellant’s vehicle. Therefore, appellant was not negligent as a matter of law:

“A driver has a duty not to merge into a lane of moving traffic until it is safe to do so, and a violation of this duty constitutes negligence as a matter of law” ( … see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128[a]). Moreover, a driver of a vehicle with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that the driver in the lane next to him or her will obey the traffic laws requiring them to yield to a driver with the right-of-way … . “‘[A] driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision'” … .

Here, in support of her motion, the appellant submitted evidence which included, among other things, a dash cam video of the accident which demonstrated that the defendant van driver failed to yield the right-of-way to the appellant’s vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a). The video revealed that the defendant van driver suddenly moved into the appellant’s lane of travel as that lane widened to become both a travel lane and an exit ramp lane and, within seconds, the right side of the vehicle of the defendant van driver collided with the driver’s side of the appellant’s vehicle as the appellant’s vehicle was entering the exit ramp lane. Thus, the evidence submitted by the appellant established, prima facie, that the defendant van driver’s failure to yield was the sole proximate cause of the collision and that the appellant was free from fault … . Vigdorchik v Vigdorchik, 2022 NY Slip Op 05886, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: Here defendant driver struck appellant’s car while attempting to merge into appellant’s lane, which violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law because appellant had the right of way. The accident was captured in a dash cam video. Appellant was not negligent as a matter of law.

 

/ ,

THE BROKER WAS THE PROCURING CAUSE OF THE SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO THE AGREED 4% COMMISSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined the broker in this sale of real property was the procuring cause of the sale and was therefore entitled to the agreed 4% commission:

“To prevail on a cause of action to recover a commission, the broker must establish (1) that it is duly licensed, (2) that it had a contract, express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying the commission, and (3) that it was the procuring cause of the sale” … . Here, the issue disputed by the parties was whether the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale. “To establish that a broker was the procuring cause of a transaction, the broker must establish that there was ‘a direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote'” between the bare introduction of the parties to the transaction and the consummation of the sale … . “[I]n order to qualify for a commission, a broker need not have been involved in the ensuing negotiations or in the completion of the sale,” if such a direct and proximate causal link exists … . …

It was Minetree’s [the broker’s] introduction of the subject properties to, and work with, TNC [the nature conservancy] which brought the County and the defendants together on a bargain sale transaction. Saunders Ventures, Inc. v Catcove Group, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05879, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: If a broker is the “procuring cause” of the sale of real property, the broker is entitled to the commission agreed to in the broker’s contract.

 

/

DEFENDANT’S OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION DID NOT REQUIRE SUMMARY DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL THE RECORDS OF HIS NEW YORK CONVICTION; HOWEVER, THE OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION MUST BE PART OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF SEALING THE NEW YORK RECORDS; SUPREME COURT GRANTED THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, reversing Supreme Court, determined that an out-of-state conviction should be considered where defendant seeks to seal the records of a New York conviction. Here Supreme Court had granted the motion to seal, finding that only New York convictions need be considered. The matter was remitted for a hearing in which the out-of-state conviction would be part of the analysis:

This appeal presents the question of whether CPL 160.59(3)(f) requires a court to summarily deny a defendant’s motion to seal an eligible offense where the defendant subsequently has been convicted of a crime under the laws of another state. We hold that CPL 160.59(3)(f) does not require summary denial under these circumstances. Instead, a defendant’s subsequent conviction under the laws of another state is a factor that the motion court should consider in its discretionary determination as to whether to seal the eligible offense … . * * *

… [A] hearing is … appropriate in this case. Although the defendant’s 2018 Virginia misdemeanor conviction was not a ground to summarily deny the defendant’s motion to seal, at the hearing, the parties may provide additional evidence related to that conviction, as well as any other evidence relevant to the determination of the defendant’s motion. Further, assuming that the defendant was in fact convicted of a misdemeanor in Virginia, the Supreme Court should consider that conviction and the nature and circumstances of the underlying conduct in making its discretionary determination as to whether to grant the defendant’s motion to seal. The court should also consider how the conviction reflects upon the defendant’s character under CPL 160.59(7)(d). In particular, we note that the defendant’s affidavit failed to disclose the existence of the 2018 Virginia misdemeanor conviction or explain the circumstances surrounding the conviction. Further, the affirmation of the defendant’s attorney affirmatively stated that the defendant had no contact with the criminal justice system since his 1990 New York conviction, which does not appear to be accurate. Upon remittal, the court should consider all of these circumstances, as well as the nonexhaustive list of factors in CPL 160.59(7), in its new determination of the defendant’s motion to seal. …

Although the Supreme Court properly determined that it was not required to summarily deny the defendant’s motion to seal his 1990 conviction for attempted grand larceny in the third degree pursuant to CPL 160.59(3)(f), as the People opposed the defendant’s motion to seal, the court was required to hold a hearing pursuant to CPL 160.59(6). People v Witherspoon, 2022 NY Slip Op 05866, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: A motion to seal the records of a New York conviction need not be summarily denied because of an out-of-state conviction. However, the out-of-state conviction must be considered as a factor in the analysis of the appropriateness of sealing the New York records.

 

/ ,

IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS AN INNOCENT PASSENGER, DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE-TO-STATE-A-CAUSE-OF-ACTION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK BECAUSE THE MOTION TO STRIKE AMOUNTED TO TESTING THE SUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF’S OWN CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the “failure to state a cause of action” affirmative defense in this traffic accident case should not have been struck. Plaintiff was a passenger in a car rear-ended by defendants. The court noted that any comparative negligence among defendant-drivers does not preclude summary judgment on liability in favor of a non-negligent passenger:

The right of an innocent passenger to summary judgment on the issue of whether he or she was at fault in the happening of an accident is not restricted by potential issues of comparative negligence as between two defendant drivers (see CPLR 3212[g] …). …

Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(b) to dismiss the defendants’ first affirmative defense, alleging that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. “[N]o motion by the plaintiff lies under CPLR 3211(b) to strike the defense [of failure to state a cause of action], as this amounts to an endeavor by the plaintiff to test the sufficiency of his or her own claim” … . Ochoa v Townsend, 2022 NY Slip Op 05854, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: The plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ failure-to-state-a-cause-of-action affirmative defense should not have been granted because the motion amounts to plaintiff’s testing the sufficiency of his or her claim.

Practice Point: In a traffic-accident case, comparative negligence among defendant drivers does not preclude summary judgment on liability in favor of an innocent passenger.

 

 

/ ,

IN THIS REVERSE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT WAS NAMED AS A BORROWER IN THE MORTGAGE (WHICH SHE SIGNED) BUT NOT IN THE NOTE; THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE MUST BE READ AS A SINGLE AGREEMENT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A “SURVIVING BORROWER” THEREBY PRECLUDING FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant raised a question of fact in this reverse-mortgage foreclosure action. The mortgage allowed foreclosure upon the death of a borrower (Goldman) as long as the property is not occupied by a “surviving borrower.” Although the defendant was not named as a borrower in the note, she was names as a borrower in the mortgage, which she signed:

… [T]he defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she was a “surviving Borrower” under the note and mortgage, which would preclude the plaintiff from requiring payment in full upon Goldman’s death … . Although the defendant was not named as a borrower in the note, she signed the mortgage in which she was named as a borrower. “Generally, the rule is that separate contracts relating to the same subject matter and executed simultaneously by the same parties may be construed as one agreement” … . Here, the note and mortgage, construed together, were ambiguous as to whether the defendant was intended to be a borrower … . Where, as here, contract language is “reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation, . . . extrinsic or parol evidence may be . . . permitted to determine the parties’ intent as to the meaning of that language” …  Here, the extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant was a borrower under the subject loan. Although Goldman, and not the defendant, was named as the borrower on various documents, including the loan application, both Goldman and the defendant signed a copy of a Truth-in-Lending Act disclosure. Moreover, in her affidavit, the defendant averred that when she and Goldman applied for the reverse mortgage, they were “assured that when [Goldman] passed away, that I would get the house and that I could continue to live there.” Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Hoar, 2022 NY Slip Op 05853, Second Dept 10-19-22

Practice Point: Here the mortgage and the note must be read as a single agreement. The fact that defendant was named in the mortgage, which she signed, but not named in the note, raised a question of fact whether she was a “surviving borrower,” precluding the reverse-mortgage foreclosure.

 

/

THE “INTERNAL AFFAIRS DOCTRINE,” WHICH ADDRESSES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN A COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS, APPLIES TO THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS AT THE TIME OF THE CONDUCT ALLEGED IN THE LAWSUIT, NOT AT THE TIME THE LAWSUIT WAS BROUGHT; CONTRARY AUTHORITY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “internal affairs doctrine” required the application of the law of the jurisdiction of FanDuel, a Scottish company.  The “internal affairs doctrine” addresses the relationships between a company and its directors and shareholders. The doctrine applies to officers and directors at the time of the conduct alleged in the suit, not at the time of the lawsuit. Prior authority to the contrary should not be followed:

We reject plaintiff’s argument that the internal affairs doctrine applies only to officers and directors at the time of the lawsuit. Rather, the question is whether defendants were “current officers [or] directors” … at the time of the events giving rise to the lawsuit … . Application of the doctrine to former directors protects the parties’ justified expectations, promotes uniformity and predictability of outcome, and prevents different laws from applying to different directors who all engaged in the same challenged transaction simply because of the date on which plaintiff chose to sue … . To the extent our past decisions could be interpreted as suggesting otherwise we clarify that the internal affairs doctrine applies to an officer or director at the time of the conduct at issue … . Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05750, First Dept 10-13-22

Practice Point: In corporation law, the “internal affairs doctrine,” which addresses the relationships between a company and its officers and directors, applies to the officers and directors at the time of the conduct alleged in the lawsuit, not at the time the lawsuit was brought. Authority to the contrary should no longer be followed.

 

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