You are here: / DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING THE ADDRESS IN THE AFFIDAVIT...

Search Results

/ ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING THE ADDRESS IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS NOT HIS DWELLING PLACE; DEFENDANT TOOK AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO MISLEAD THE PARTY ATTEMPTING TO SERVE HIM (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been estopped from claiming the address in the affidavit of service was not his “dwelling plaice” because defendant misled the party attempting to serve him:

Estoppel, in this context, may preclude a defendant “from challenging the location and propriety of service of process if that defendant has engaged in affirmative conduct which misleads a party into serving process at an incorrect address” … . For example, “where a defendant willfully misrepresented his address or violated a statutory notification requirement … , or where he ‘engaged in conduct calculated to prevent the plaintiff from learning his actual place of residence’ … , he may be estopped from asserting the defense of defective service” … .

Here, the record established that the defendant engaged in “affirmative conduct which misl[ed] a party into serving process at an incorrect address” … . Hudson Val. Bank, N.A. v Eagle Trading, 2022 NY Slip Op 04956, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: A party who affirmatively takes steps to mislead the party attempting to serve him will be estopped from claiming the address in the the affidavit of service is not his dwelling place.

 

/ , ,

THE LETTER SENT TO THE BORROWER BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY INDICATE THE DEBT WAS BEING IMMEDIATELY ACCELERATED; THEREFORE THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letter sent by the bank to the borrower in this foreclosure action did not accelerate the debt and therefore did not trigger the six-year statute of limitations:

… [A] ” ‘letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, . . . does not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause'” …  “The determinative question is not what the noteholder intended or the borrower perceived, but whether the contractual election was effectively invoked” … . Here, a letter sent to the defendants … , did not effectively accelerate the mortgage debt, as this letter merely discussed acceleration as a possible future event … . HSBC Bank USA v Pantel, 2022 NY Slip Op 04954, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: A letter from the bank to the borrower which discussed the acceleration of the mortgage debt but did not indicate the debt was in fact accelerated did not trigger the six-year statute of limitations on the foreclosure action. The foreclosure action was not, therefore, time-barred.

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS PROPERLY MAILED AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE CURED BY THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the defect was not cured by an affidavit submitted in reply:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Kolette Modlin, an authorized officer of Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter Caliber), the loan servicer for the plaintiff’s successor in interest. Modlin stated that she had reviewed the plaintiff’s business records, which had been verified for accuracy, incorporated into Caliber’s records, and relied upon by Caliber in the ordinary course of its business, and determined that 90-day notices were mailed by first-class and certified mail to the defendant at the mortgaged premises. The plaintiff also submitted copies of the 90-day notices that were allegedly sent to the defendant. However, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents establishing that the notices were actually mailed … . Moreover, although Modlin attested that she had personal knowledge of Caliber’s records, and that those records included the plaintiff’s records, Modlin did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the plaintiff, which was the entity that allegedly sent the 90-day notices to the defendant … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, although it submitted with its reply papers a second affidavit from Modlin, along with documentary evidence in the form of a letter log purportedly establishing the mailing of the 90-day notices, the plaintiff could not, under the circumstances, rely on the second affidavit to correct deficiencies inherent in the original one … . Ditech Fin., LLC v Cummings, 2022 NY Slip Op 04949, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff bank did not submit the records proving the notice of foreclosure was properly mailed and the affiant did not demonstrate familiarity with the mailing procedures used by the party which mailed the notice. The defects were not cured by a second affidavit submitted in reply. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

/ , ,

INFANT PLAINTFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER WHILE IN A CROSS-WALK WITH THE WALK SIGNAL ON; SUN-GLARE IS NOT AN “EMERGENCY” WHICH WILL RAISE A QUESTON OF FACT; PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian-cross-walk traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant driver alleged sun-glare prevented her from seeing the infant plaintiff in the cross-walk. Sun-glare is not an “emergency” and did not raise a question of fact:

… [A] “violation of a standard of care imposed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … . “A driver who faces a green light has a duty to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians who are lawfully within a crosswalk in accordance with the standard of care imposed by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(a)(1)” … . “A driver also has ‘a statutory duty to use due care to avoid colliding with pedestrians on the roadway [pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146], as well as a common-law duty to see that which he [or she] should have seen through the proper use of his [or her] senses” … .

Here, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting the police accident report, and an affidavit from a witness who averred that the defendants’ vehicle struck the infant plaintiff with its front bumper while the infant plaintiff was crossing Stillwell Avenue in a marked crosswalk with an active “white pedestrian signal” … . In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver had a non-negligent explanation for the accident … . By the defendant driver’s own admissions in the police accident report and her affidavit, she did not see the infant plaintiff prior to the accident, which she only realized had occurred upon “hear[ing] the impact,” and she continued to drive into the crosswalk after being “blinded” by sun glare, which “caus[ed] her to collide into [the infant plaintiff].” Further, as the plaintiffs contend, the foreseeable occurrence of sun glare while the defendant driver was driving west at sundown did not constitute a ‘qualifying emergency’ under the emergency doctrine … . E.B. v Gonzalez, 2022 NY Slip Op 04942, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here the infant plaintiff was lawfully crossing the street in a cross-walk when struck by defendant driver. The driver’s allegation she was blinded by sun-glare was not an emergency and did not raise a question of fact. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

/

THE DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF AND/OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A PUDDLE OF LIQUID) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store (Whole Foods) did not demonstrated it did not have constructive notice of the puddle of liquid which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall:

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Yerry [plaintiff] as the nonmovant, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the accident was not the result of the defendants’ failure to take appropriate remedial measures within a reasonable period of time after acquiring actual notice of a hazardous condition … . The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants’ employees made the condition “more hazardous by incomplete remedial measures” … . Yerry v Whole Food Mkt. Group, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05000, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Unusual case where there was a question of fact whether defendant’s inadequate clean-up of a puddle of liquid caused plaintiff’s slip and fall.

 

/ ,

AN ACTION CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 WHEN ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN JOINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure complaint should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 because issue had not been joined:

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met, including that issue has been joined in the action” … .. Here, dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 was improper, since none of the defendants had interposed an answer to the complaint and, thus, issue was never joined … . Similarly, under the circumstances of this case, 22 NYCRR 202.27 did not provide a basis for dismissal of the action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Frederic, 2022 NY Slip Op 04999, Second Dept 6-17-22

Practice Point: Where issue has not been joined the action cannot be dismissed for neglect to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216.

 

/ , , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not prove compliance with the mailing requirements for mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice and the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint:

… [P]laintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the required RPAPL 1304 notice was sent by first-class mail. In an affidavit in support of its motion, Joanna M. Gloria, the plaintiff’s vice president of loan documentation, neither attested that she had personal knowledge of the mailing, nor did she present proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed. “‘[T]he mere assertion that the notice was mailed, supported by someone with no personal knowledge of the mailing, in the absence of proof of office practices to ensure that the item was properly mailed, does not give rise to the presumption of receipt'” … . …

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint. “A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . No extraordinary circumstances were present in this case, as the “failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is not jurisdictional” … , the defendant did not present any proof as to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with RPAPL 1304, and did not cross-move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Cascarano, 2022 NY Slip Op 04998, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: The bank did not prove the notice of foreclosure was properly mailed, requiring denial of the bank’s motion for summary judgment. But the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the foreclosure complaint.

 

/ , ,

THE MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGATIONS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PRIOR TO APRIL 2013 AS TIME-BARRED WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DISSENT ARGUING THAT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS SUPPORTED APPLYING THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE AND THE MATTER SHOULD PROCEED TO DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the continuous treatment doctrine did not apply and defendants’ motion to dismiss allegations of medical malpractice occurring before April 9, 2013, was properly granted. The decision is detailed and fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Accepting the plaintiff’s expansive view that the mere status of receiving treatment for menopausal symptoms necessarily encompasses all conditions related to menopause and aging, would undermine the sound policy reasons behind the continuous treatment doctrine … . Such a result is contrary to the foundational policy reasons for creating the continuous treatment doctrine, and could result in expanding it to virtually all the medical care a patient receives … . * * *

From the dissent:

The Supreme Court’s determination, endorsed by my colleagues in the majority, that the records submitted by the defendants never reference or address osteoporosis is, in fact, belied by those medical records created and submitted by the defendants, which document, inter alia, that, during the relevant period, the defendants assessed, treated, and monitored the plaintiff’s bone health, despite their failure to order a bone density test.

In sum, the majority’s characterization of certain of the defendants’ own documents fails to afford the plaintiff the favorable view through which the documents should be read … . Moreover, no discovery has been conducted yet, and “[t]he resolution of the continuous treatment issue . . . should abide relevant discovery” … . Weinstein v Gewirtz, 2022 NY Slip Op 04997, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here the pre-discovery motion to dismiss medical malpractice causes of action as time-barred was affirmed. The dissenter argued the defendants’ own documents demonstrated the possible applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine and the matter should proceed to discovery.

 

/ , , ,

CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER ASPIRIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED AS TREATMENT FOR STROKE WAS RAISED IN A DEPOSITION (BUT NOT IN THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS) ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO RAISE THE ISSUE IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. The was conflicting expert-opinion evidence about whether plaintiff should have been administered aspirin as treatment for a stroke. Although the aspirin-issue was first raised in opposition to defendants’ motions, the issue had been raised in a deposition and was therefore properly raised in the opposition papers:

… [T]he plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether Nandakumar departed from the accepted standard of care in his neurological evaluation and treatment of the injured plaintiff’s condition by failing to timely order and administer aspirin to the injured plaintiff, and whether such alleged departures proximately caused her alleged injuries … . Although the plaintiffs’ theory regarding the administration of aspirin was not specifically alleged in the complaint or bill of particulars, this theory was referred to by the plaintiffs’ counsel when deposing a … resident, and thus, was appropriately raised in opposition to [defendant’s] motion … . Walker v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 04996, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where there are conflicting expert opinions. Here, whether aspirin should have bean administrated to treat stroke was raised in a deposition, but not in the complaint or bill of particulars. Because it was raised in a deposition, it was properly raised in opposition to the defendants’ summary judgment motions.

 

/ , ,

THE ACTION, WHICH STEMMED FROM PLAINTIFF’S BEING DROPPED IN THE DELIVERY ROOM IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIRTH, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action, which stemmed from being dropped in the delivery room immediately after birth in 1999, sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence, and was therefore time-barred:

CPLR 208 provides that the statute of limitations is tolled throughout the period of infancy, but limits such toll to 10 years in medical malpractice actions … . In determining whether conduct should be deemed medical malpractice or ordinary negligence, the critical factor is the nature of the duty owed to the plaintiff that the defendant is alleged to have breached … . A negligent act or omission by a health care provider that constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician to a particular patient constitutes medical malpractice … .

Here, the defendant established … the conduct at issue derived from the duty owed to plaintiff by the defendant as a result of the physician-patient relationship and was substantially related to the plaintiff’s medical treatment … . Rojas v Tandon, 2022 NY Slip Op 04989, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: The infancy toll of the statute of limitations in CPLR 208 is limited to ten years in medical malpractice cases. Here plaintiff alleged she was dropped in the delivery room immediately after birth in 1999. The action would have been timely if it sounded in negligence. But the action was deemed to sound in medical malpractice rendering it 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