You are here: / THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH...

Search Results

/ ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; I.E., THE NOTICE MUST BE MAILED IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE WITH NO OTHER MATERIALS, AND THE NOTICE MUST BE SENT SEPARATELY TO EACH BORROWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not comply with the RPAPL 1304 requirements that the 90-day notice of foreclosure be mailed in a separate envelope and that the notice be sent separately to both borrowers:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish … that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304, since additional material was sent in the same envelope as the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304 … , and a single notice was jointly addressed to both defendants … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v DiBenedetti, 2022 NY Slip Op 02983, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: RPAPL 1304, which must be strictly complied with by the bank in any foreclosure action, requires (1) that the 90-day notice of foreclosure be sent in a separate envelope which includes nothing else and (2) that the 90-day notice be sent separately to each borrower.

 

/ ,

TO CHALLENGE THE BANK’S STANDING TO FORECLOSE THE DEFENDANT MUST ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; MERELY DENYING THE RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the bank in this foreclosure action was not required to affirmatively demonstrate standing, the defendant, to raise the issue, must assert lack of standing as an affirmative defense, and merely denying the relevant allegations in the complaint is not enough:

… [T]he plaintiff was not required to show its standing to maintain the action. “[W]here, as here, standing is not an essential element of the cause of action, under CPLR 3018(b) a defendant must affirmatively plead lack of standing as an affirmative defense in the answer in order to properly raise the issue in its responsive pleading” … . The mere denial of the allegation that the plaintiff was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage in the answer of Republic First Bank, without more, was insufficient to assert that the plaintiff lacks standing … . Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Jemal, 2022 NY Slip Op 02970, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: Lack of standing in a foreclosure action must be raised as an affirmative defense. It is not enough to deny the relevant allegations in the foreclosure complaint.

 

/

EVEN CRIMINAL SLURS ARE NOT ACTIONABLE AS DEFAMATION IF THEY ARE PURE OPINION; HERE DEFENDANT’S TWEET ACCUSING PLAINTIFF OF MAKING “THREATS” WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined even communications which could be considered “criminal slurs” are not actionable as defamation if they are “pure opinion.” The defendant was a member of the NYC council representing Queens. When defendant opposed the construction of an Amazon corporate headquarters in Queens, plaintiff, a local restaurant owner, in text messages, indicated defendant’s career would be ended if defendant did not withdraw his opposition to the Amazon project: Defendant then put out a tweet accusing plaintiff of making “threats.” Plaintiff brought this defamation action based on that tweet.. Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and the Second Department reversed:

The defendant’s characterization of the plaintiff’s text as containing “several threats rolled into one” is not a statement which can be proved true or false but was, instead, an opinion … . Moreover, “there is simply no special rule of law making criminal slurs actionable regardless of whether they are asserted as opinion or fact” … . Instead, “accusations of criminality [can] be regarded as mere hypothesis and therefore not actionable if the facts on which they are based are fully and accurately set forth” … . Here, the defendant’s statement amounts to no more than “nonactionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole” … . Bowen v Van Bramer, 2022 NY Slip Op 02975, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: A tweet accusing plaintiff of making “threats” against defendant city council member (representing Queens) was not actionable as defamation. Plaintiff, a restaurant owner, had texted defendant saying that people would work to end defendant’s political career if he didn’t retract his opposition to Amazon’s building a corporate headquarters in Queens. Defendant then posted plaintiff’s comments in a tweet and accused plaintiff of making “threats.” Plaintiff sued for defamation based on that tweet. In dismissing the complaint, the Second Department noted that even “criminal slurs” are not actionable where, as here, they are “pure opinion.”

 

/ , ,

AT THE TIME DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE OFFENSE IN 2007, IT WAS NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL THE RECORD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the crime for which defendant was convicted, at the time of its commission in 2007, was not a registrable offense under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Therefore defendant’s motion to seal the record should not have been summarily denied. The matter was remitted for a hearing:

… [A]t the time of the defendant’s conviction for attempted promoting prostitution in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 230.25), the definition of “sex offense” in Correction Law § 168-a(2) did not include convictions of an attempt to commit Penal Law § 230.25 … . Further, the defendant has never been required to register under SORA for this conviction. Accordingly, under the plain language of the statute, the defendant has not been not [sic] convicted of “an offense for which registration as a sex offender is required pursuant to article six-C of the correction law” (CPL 160.59[1][a] …). Thus, the Supreme Court should not have determined that the defendant’s conviction falls into the category of excluded offenses … . Likewise, although CPL 160.59(3)(a) provides that the reviewing court must summarily deny the defendant’s application when, inter alia, “the defendant is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to article six-C of the correction law,” here, the defendant is not required to do so.

As the defendant’s motion was not subject to mandatory denial under CPL 160.59(3) and the district attorney opposed the defendant’s motion, a hearing on the defendant’s motion was required … . People v Miranda, 2022 NY Slip Op 03009, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: If an offense is now a registrable offense pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act, but was not a registrable offense when committed (here in 2007), a defendant’s motion to seal the record cannot be summarily denied. The motion may still be denied after a hearing, however.

 

/ , ,

SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION IS NOT PART OF A SENTENCE AND THEREFORE IS NOT COVERED BY THE UNLAWFUL-SENTENCE EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; THEREFORE THE UNPRESERVED ISSUE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; HOWEVER, UPON REMITTAL, THE ISSUE CAN BE (AND WAS) CONSIDERED AT THE APPELLATE DIVISION LEVEL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, upon remittal from the Court of Appeals, adhered to its prior decision finding defendant’s certification as a sex offender unlawful. The Court of Appeals ruled that sex-offender certification is not part of a sentence and therefore is not covered by an exception to the preservation requirement. But, because the Appellate Division, unlike the Court of Appeals, has “interest-of-justice” jurisdiction, the prior decision was upheld in the interest of justice by the Second Department, despite the lack of preservation:

In an opinion dated November 23, 2021, the Court of Appeals concluded that sex offender certification is not part of a defendant’s sentence, and thus, a contention regarding sex offender certification does not fall within the exception to the preservation rule for challenges to unlawful sentences … . However, the Court of Appeals noted that although it does not have interest-of-justice jurisdiction to review unpreserved issues, the “Appellate Division may have authority to take corrective action in the interest of justice based upon defendant’s unpreserved challenge to the legality of his certification as a sex offender” … . Accordingly, the Court of Appeals remitted the matter to this Court for further proceedings … .

We now reach the defendant’s unpreserved contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[3][c]; [6][a]). For the reasons stated in our prior opinion and order, the defendant’s certification as a sex offender was unlawful … .People v Buyund, 2022 NY Slip Op 03004, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals does not have interest-of-justice jurisdiction and therefore cannot consider appellate issues that are not preserved. The Appellate Division, however, can invoke interest-of-justice jurisdiction to consider unpreserved appellate issues.

 

/ ,

WHETHER DEFENDANT’S CONNECTICUT CONVICTION CAN SERVE AS A PREDICATE FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE DETERMINED WITHOUT THE CONNECTICUT ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT; THE UNPRESERVED ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, ruled a hearing was required to determine whether defendant’s Connecticut conviction could serve as a predicate offense for second felony offender status. The issue was not preserved and was considered in the interest of justice:

Although the defendant did not preserve for appellate review the issue of whether he was properly sentenced as a second felony offender, we reach that issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. The defendant’s prior conviction in Connecticut was for larceny in the first degree under Connecticut General Statutes former § 53a-122(a). This statute defined grand larceny differently under several subdivisions, not all of which are felonies under New York law. To determine which subdivision applied to this defendant, the Supreme Court could have looked at the Connecticut accusatory instrument to determine the subdivision of the Connecticut statute under which the defendant was convicted … . However, the Connecticut accusatory instrument is not in the record.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we vacate the defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender and the sentence imposed, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a second felony offender hearing and for resentencing thereafter. People v Robinson, 2022 NY Slip Op 03010, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: Here portions of the Connecticut larceny statute were equivalent to a New York felony and other portions were not. Therefore, whether the Connecticut conviction could serve as a predicate for second felony offender status cannot be determined without examining the Connecticut accusatory instrument. The issue was not preserved for appeal but was considered in the interest of justice. Matter remitted for a hearing.​

 

/ ,

THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO SAVE THE AMENDED PETITION CHALLENGING A USE VARIANCE; THE INTITIAL PETITION FAILED TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY WHO WAS KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AND WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND; THE AMENDED PEITITION, WHICH NAMED THE NECESSARY PARTY, WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAD NO DOUBT ABOUT WHO THE NECESSARY PARTY WAS AND HAD NAMED HER IN A PRIOR PETITION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE COULD NOT BE INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the relation-back doctrine did not save the petition challenging a use variance. The initial petition was dismissed for failure to name a necessary party, Rosa Kuehn. The subsequent amended petition, which included the necessary party, was dismissed as time-barred:

Supreme Court correctly determined that petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the relation back doctrine. That doctrine “permits a petitioner to amend a petition to add a respondent even though the statute of limitations has expired at the time of amendment so long as the petitioner can demonstrate three things: (1) that the claims arose out of the same occurrence, (2) that the later-added respondent is united in interest with a previously named respondent, and (3) that the later-added respondent knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by petitioners as to the later-added respondent’s identity, the proceeding would have also been brought against him or her” … .

… [P]etitioners simply cannot meet the third and final condition and therefore cannot avail themselves of the doctrine. Indeed, Rosa Kuehn was appropriately named as a respondent and identified as the landowner of the subject property in petitioners’ successful challenge to the use variance issued in 2013 … ; “thus, this simply is not an instance where the identity of a respondent . . . was in doubt or there was some question regarding that party’s status” … . Matter of Nemeth v K-Tooling, 2022 NY Slip Op 03034, Third Department 5-4-22

Practice Point: Here a necessary party was not named in the petition and the petition was dismissed for that reason. The amended petition, which named the necessary party, was time-barred. The relation-back doctrine could not be invoked to save the amended petition because the identity of the necessary party was known to the petitioners who had named her in a related petition in 2013.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S UNTIMELY ANSWER WAS REJECTED BY PLAINTIFF BUT PLAINTIFF DEEMED THE ANSWER TO BE A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; DEFENDANT DID NOT OBJECT; AN APPEARANCE IS THE EQUIVALENT OF SERVICE OF A SUMMONS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAIVED THE LACK-OF-PERSONAL-JURISDICTION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant waived any claim of a lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff, rejecting defendant’s answer as untimely, indicated the answer was deemed to be a notice of appearance, which is the equivalent of personal service of the summons:

An appearance of the defendant is equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him or her, unless an objection to jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) is asserted by motion or in the answer … . Here, the plaintiff submitted evidence that the defendant served an answer upon it on or about January 20, 2015. That answer did not assert the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff rejected the answer as untimely and advised the defendant that it would deem the untimely answer a notice of appearance by the defendant. The defendant did not object to the plaintiff treating her untimely answer as a notice of appearance . The defendant did not assert lack of personal jurisdiction until moving, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint more than two years later … . Therefore, she waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Muzac, 2022 NY Slip Op 02978, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s late answer was rejected but plaintiff informed defendant it considered the answer to be a notice of appearance. Defendant did not object. An appearance is equivalent to service of a summons. Therefore defendant waived the lack-of-personal-jurisdiction defense.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO THE EXTENT THE AMENDMENT AMPLIFIED THE ALLEGATIONS ALREADY MADE WITHOUT OBJECTION IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs were entitled to amplify the allegations in the supplemental bill of particulars in second and proposed third supplemental and amended bill of particulars:

The plaintiffs were entitled to amend their bill of particulars once as of right at any time prior to the filing of the note of issue … . Such amendment enables a party to include whatever could have been included in the original bill of particulars … . “‘Whatever the pleading pleads, the bill must particularize since the bill is intended to [afford] the adverse party a more detailed picture of the claim . . . being particularized'” … . B. E. M. v Warwick Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 02990, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiffs were entitled to amend the supplemental bill of particulars to the extent the amendment amplified allegations already made without objection in the supplemental bill of particulars.

 

/

PLAINTIFF, A FLORIDA RESIDENT, ALLEGEDLY WAS ABUSED BY A PRIEST IN FLORIDA IN 1983 AND 1984; PLAINTIFF SUED THE DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN BECAUSE THE PRIEST WHO ALLEGEDLY ABUSED HIM WAS TRANSFERRED FROM BROOKLYN TO FLORIDA, ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH CHILDREN; THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE NONRESIDENT PLAINTIFF AND THE BORROWING STATUTE DOES APPLY; THEREFORE FLORIDA’S FOUR-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion, in a matter of first impression, by Justice Christopher, determined the New York Child Victims Act, CPLR 214-g, is not available to nonresident plaintiffs where the alleged acts of abuse occurred outside New York. CPLR 214-g extends the statute of limitations to allow lawsuits by plaintiffs who were children at the time of the abuse. The Second Department further determined CPLR 214-g does not preclude the application of the borrowing statute, CPLR 202. Here the plaintiff, a Florida resident, alleged the acts of abuse were committed in Florida in 1983 and 1984 by Father William Authenrieth. Plaintiff alleged Father Authenrieth was transferred from the Diocese of Brooklyn to the Florida Diocese of Orlando (Florida) in 1973 because of his sexual misconduct with children. Hence the suit by the Florida plaintiff against the Diocese of Brooklyn. Because CPLR 214-g does not apply and CPLR 202, the borrowing statute, requires the application of Florida’s four-year statute of limitations, plaintiff’s suit is time-barred:

… [U]nder the circumstances of this case, CPLR 214-g does not apply extraterritorially, where the plaintiff is a nonresident, and the alleged acts of sexual abuse were perpetrated by a nonresident outside of New York … . * * *

… [U]nder these circumstances the borrowing statute would apply, and since the plaintiff’s action is time-barred in Florida, it would also be time-barred in New York, unless, as argued by the plaintiff, CPLR 214-g precludes the application of CPLR 202. … We answer that question in the negative. Therefore, even if CPLR 214-g applied extraterritorially, the plaintiff’s action would be dismissed as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 202. S.H. v Diocese of Brooklyn, 2022 NY Slip Op 02982, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: The Child Victims Act, which extends the statute of limitations for plaintiffs who were abused as children, does not apply to this Florida plaintiff who was allegedly abused in Florida. Plaintiff sued the Diocese of Brooklyn under the theory that the priest who abused him in Florida in 1983 and 1984 was transferred to Florida from Brooklyn, allegedly because of sexual misconduct with children. New York’s borrowing statute applied rendering the action time-barred under Florida’s four-year statute of limitations.

 

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