You are here: / AT THE TIME THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED...

Search Results

/ ,

AT THE TIME THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED THAT THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT INCLUDE THE NUMBER OF DAYS THE BORROWER HAD BEEN IN DEFAULT; A DISCREPENCY BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE DEFAULT IN THE 90-DAY NOTICE (JULY 2009) AND THE DATE IN THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE MORTGAGE AND IN THE COMPLAINT (MAY 2011) CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE ON ITS FACE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action was not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. At the time the action was commenced, RPAPL 1304 required the notice to state the number of days the borrower had been in default. The 90-day notice stated defendant had been in default 2330 days, which put the default in July 2009. But the notice required by the mortgage and the complaint stated defendant was in default since May 2011:

The 90-day notice sent to the defendant stated that, as of November 18, 2015, her loan was 2330 days in default—indicating a default date in July 2009. However, both the notice of default required by the mortgage agreement and the complaint alleged that the plaintiff had defaulted on the loan in May 2011. At least one of these three documents, then, contained an error concerning information that was required under RPAPL 1304. Notably, the plaintiff’s response to the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment did not attempt to clarify this discrepancy; it only addressed the service of the 90-day notice. The plaintiff’s appellate brief likewise does not address this issue. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not eliminate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the RPAPL 1304 notice was defective on its face … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Cox, 2022 NY Slip Op 02149, Second Dept 3-30-22

Practice Point: In this foreclosure action, the 90-day notice put the defendant’s default in July 2009, but the notice required by the mortgage and the complaint put the default in May 2011. This raised a question of fact whether the notice required by RPAPL 1304 was defective on its face.

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE MUNICIPALITY PROVED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICY SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, IT DID NOT PROVE THAT PILING SNOW ALONG THE EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK DID NOT CREATE THE ICY CONDITION; THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality did not demonstrate it did not create the icy condition on the sidewalk where plaintiff slipped and fell by piling snow along the sidewalk which melted and froze:

“While the mere failure to remove all snow or ice from a sidewalk is an act of omission, rather than an affirmative act of negligence, a municipality’s act in piling snow as part of its snow removal efforts, which snow pile then melts and refreezes to create a dangerous icy condition, constitutes an affirmative act excepting the dangerous condition from the prior written notice requirement” … . Pirrone v Metro N. Commuter R.R., 2022 NY Slip Op 02144, Second Dept 3-30-22

Practice Point: Here the municipality did not prove it did not create the icy-sidewalk condition by piling snow removed from the sidewalk along the edge of the sidewalk where it melted and froze. Therefore, even though the municipality did not have written notice of the icy condition, there was a question of fact whether the municipality created the condition. The municipality’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

/ ,

EVIDENCE OF MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND HER FAILURE TO PROPERLY TREAT IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF NEGLECT, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF A SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF CHILD NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) presented sufficient proof to support a finding of neglect based upon mother’s mental illness (schizophrenia) which mother failed to properly treat. Evidence of an actual instance of child neglect is not necessary:

“Even though evidence of a parent’s mental illness, alone, is insufficient to support a finding of neglect of a child, such evidence may be part of a neglect determination when the proof further demonstrates that the parent’s condition creates an imminent risk of physical, mental, or emotional harm to the child” … . “Indeed, even when a child has not been actually impaired, a finding of neglect is appropriate to prevent imminent impairment, which is an independent and separate ground on which a neglect finding may be based” … . In such cases, the court is not required to wait until a child has already been harmed before it enters a neglect finding … . Proof of a parent’s “ongoing mental illness and the failure to follow through with aftercare medication is a sufficient basis for a finding of neglect where such failure results in a parent’s inability to care for [his or] her child in the foreseeable future” … . Matter of Khaleef M. S.-P. (Khaleeda M. S.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02124, Second Dept 3-30-22

Practice Point: Here the Second Department determined proof of mother’s mental illness and her failure to properly treat it was sufficient to support a finding of child neglect, even the absence of a specific instance of child neglect.

 

/ , ,

IF PLAINTIFFS IN A FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE AND ENFORCEMENT-OF-MONEY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING CAN BE FULLY COMPENSATED BY MONEY DAMAGES, IT IS ERROR TO ISSUE A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (FIRST DEPT),

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs in this fraudulent conveyance action can be fully compensated by money damages. Therefore the preliminary injunction was not available relief:

In this action to set aside alleged fraudulent conveyances and other relief in aid of enforcement of money judgments, plaintiffs can be fully compensated by a monetary award, and thus an injunction will not issue because no irreparable harm will be sustained in the absence of such relief … . Medallion Fin. Corp. v Tsitiridis, 2022 NY Slip Op 02090, First Dept 3-29-22

Practice Point: If a plaintiff can be fully compensated by money damages, an injunction is not an available remedy.

 

/ , ,

THERE WAS A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS PARTNERS AND CO-OWNERS OF A BUSINESS, GIVING RISE TO AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO AN ACCOUNTING, NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXISTENCE OF AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined the petitioners were entitled to an accounting for a business, Ocinomled, Ltd., because there was a fiduciary relationship between the parties as partners and co-owners of Ocinomled:

This Court has held “whenever there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties . . . there is an absolute right to an accounting notwithstanding the existence of an adequate remedy at law” … . It is undisputed that there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties as partners and co-owners of Ocinomled. An equitable accounting is “designed to require a person in possession of financial records to produce them, demonstrate how money was expended and return pilfered funds in his or her possession” … . While it is clear that respondents produced the full books and records, and the Special Referee went through thousands of documents and reviewed numerous expert reports, this is insufficient …, particularly because respondents’ bookkeeping was described as inadequate, and sometimes nonexistent, and there was evidence respondents intentionally destroyed key financial data during the litigation. Matter of Grgurev v Licul, 2022 NY Slip Op 02088, First Dept 3-29-22

Practice Point: There is a fiduciary relationship between partners and co-owners of a business giving rise to an absolute right to an accounting, despite the existence of an adequate remedy at law.

 

/ ,

THE SIX-YEAR DELAY, DURING WHICH DEFENDANT WAS INCARCERATED, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL; THE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s murder and assault convictions after trial, determined defendant have been deprived of his right to a speedy. It was presumed that the delay of six years, during which defendant was incarcerated, prejudiced the defense. The prosecution failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay:

“Where there has been extended delay, it is the People’s burden to establish good cause” … . Following defendant’s January 2011 arraignment, this case was reassigned to successive Assistant District Attorneys. After the case was assigned to the third and final prosecutor in mid-2014, he waited about one year before seeking to obtain a DNA sample from defendant to be compared with DNA recovered from a plastic cup found outside the garage in which the shootings occurred during a party. That motion was denied because there was no nexus between the cup and the shootings, and because defendant’s admitted attendance at the party was undisputed. The People argue that their delay was justified by the reluctance of a retired detective to testify; they cite a note from the detective’s doctor stating that he was medically unfit to be cross-examined and argue that the detective was a necessary witness because he conducted the lineup in which the surviving victim identified defendant as the assailant. However, this detective ultimately did not testify at the suppression hearing or trial, and the suppression court credited the hearing testimony of the surviving victim, who knew defendant, and denied the motion to suppress the identification based on that testimony. Moreover, it is undisputed that the retired detective was not needed to introduce defendant’s statements, which were introduced through another detective at trial. People v McDonald, 2022 NY Slip Op 02099, First Dept 3-29-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant’s murder and assault convictions after trial were reversed because defendant was deprived of his right to a speedy trial. Defendant was incarcerated during the six-year delay, which raised the presumption the defense was prejudiced by the delay. In addition the People were not able to show a good cause for the delay. The People claimed a detective’s poor health precluded him from testifying, but the detective’s testimony was not necessary.

 

/ , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE AGAINST THE HUSBAND, WHO WAS REPRESENTING HIMSELF, WHEN HE DID NOT APPEAR AT THE INQUEST; BOTH THE COURT AND THE WIFE WERE AWARE THE HUSBAND HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH A SIGNIFICANT MENTAL HEALTH CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judgment of divorce should not have been entered after the husband, who was representing himself, failed to appear at an inquest. Both the court and his wife were aware he had been diagnosed with a mental health condition, resulting in episodes when he could not care for himself or protect his interests:

… [A]t the conclusion of the inquest, the court explicitly acknowledged that the husband’s absence was likely attributable to his mental health. Thus, before entering judgment upon the husband’s default, there should have been an inquiry into whether a guardian ad litem was necessary (see CPLR 1201, 1203 …). Because there was no inquiry, the judgment must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings, including, if necessary, an inquiry into the husband’s current capacity … . Richard v Buck, 2022 NY Slip Op 02101, First Dept 3-29-22

Practice Point: Here both the court and the wife were aware the husband, who was representing himself and did not appear at the inquest, suffered from a significant mental health condition. The default judgment of divorce should not have been entered. The judgment was vacated. If necessary, Supreme Court should hold a hearing to determine the husband’s capacity.

 

/ ,

THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER AND THE ADOPTIVE MOTHER ENTERED A POSTADOPTION CONTACT AGREEMENT WHICH ALLOWED TWO SUPERVISED VISITS WITH THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER PER YEAR; THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR AFTER VISITING WITH THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER SUPPORTED FAMILY COURT’S CONCLUSION IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN TO TERMINATE VISITATION WITH THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE EVIDENCE OF THE DAUGHTER’S, IN CONTRAST TO THE SON’S, POST-VISIT BEHAVIOR DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF VISITATION WITH THE DAUGHTER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined Family Court properly terminated the biological mother’s visitation with her children who had been adopted. The biological mother and the adoptive mother had entered a postadoption contact agreement which allowed the biological mother two supervised visits per year with her son and daughter. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated that the son’s behavior changed drastically after visits. His behavior was characterized as “out of control.” There was evidence the daughter began banging her head and had nightmares after a visit. The dissent argued the evidence supported termination of visits with the son, but did not support the termination of visits with the daughter:

The adoptive mother testified that after visiting the biological mother in December 2017, the son destroyed rooms in the house and was completely out of control for close to a month. After the July 2018 visit with the biological mother, the son “climb[ed] the walls in [his] classroom,” hit his friend, hurt his sister and had difficulties regulating his behavior for several months. * * *

With respect to the dissent’s reference to the policy concerns underlying postadoption contact agreements, we note that we wholeheartedly embrace and promote the policies and goals of these types of agreements and encourage open adoptions. However, it is not our intention to address the underlying policies of postadoption contact agreements, but, instead, to focus solely upon the principle governing and guiding the initiation and continuation of open contact between the children and the biological parent — the best interests of the children. Here, it is uncontroverted that the daughter displayed a persistent pattern of bizarre and harmful behavior — head banging and disrupted sleep due to nightmares — commensurate with visits with her biological mother. These behaviors continued for 1½ years. Although the daughter did not display the behaviors at the time of the visits, a time when the adoptive parents were present and the daughter’s attention was directed toward other activities, the behaviors were manifested subsequent to each visit. … [W]e cannot agree that enforcing visitation with respect to one sibling but not the other serves the best interests of either. Matter of Jennifer JJ. v Jessica JJ., 2022 NY Slip Op 02043, Third Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: The postadoption contact agreement allowing the biological mother to visit her children after adoption was properly terminated by the court because the evidence of the children’s post-visit behavior supported the conclusion continued visitation was not in the best interests of the children.

 

/ , ,

THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER HAD, AS A JUDGE, PRESIDED OVER A DIFFERENT CUSTODY MATTER INVOLVING MOTHER, BUT INVOLVING DIFFERENT CHIDREN AND A DIFFERENT FATHER, DID NOT REQUIRE AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFACTION OF THE AFC PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 17 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the attorney for the child (AFC) in the instant custody matter, who, as a judge, had presided over another custody case involving mother and different children, was not subject to automatic disqualification:

Various factual circumstances exist where disqualification of an attorney under Judiciary Law § 17 has been found. * * *

… [T]he custody case noted by the mother neither involved the subject children nor the subject children’s father] Rather, it was an entirely separate proceeding involving different children and a different father. Furthermore, the mother does not allege any factual ties between these underlying proceedings and the prior custody case … . Indeed, the only common tie between them is that the mother was a litigant. … [O]nly the mother, and not her present custody claim over the subject children, had been before the AFC during his tenure as a judge.

… [T]he mother’s fitness as the custodial parent presumably was an issue presented in her prior custody case. It is also an issue present here. Equating a discrete issue with a “matter” provided in Judiciary Law § 17, however, impermissibly stretches the meaning of “matter” such that it does not comport with “action, claim, . . . motion or proceeding” — the other terms in Judiciary Law § 17 … . … [I]n view of the jurisdiction of Family Court and the particular cases such court hears, a party’s fitness as a custodial parent frequently arises as an issue whether directly or indirectly. By giving an expansive view to “matter,” the AFC, a former Family Court judge who had presided over countless proceedings in the past, would be disqualified from representing any party in any future case where another party in such case was previously before the AFC in one of those past proceedings — a result that would occur without regard to the nature of either the past proceeding or future case. Matter of Corey O. v Angela P., 2022 NY Slip Op 02044, Third Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: The fact that the attorney for the child (AFC) in this custody case presided, as a judge, over another custody case involving mother, but involving different children and a different father, did not require automatic disqualification of the AFC pursuant to Judiciary Law section 17.

 

/ , , ,

IN THIS SEX-OFFENSE CASE, THE SENTENCING JUDGE VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW BY REFUSING TO DISCLOSE THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT TO THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT PLACING THE REASONS FOR NONDISCLOSURE ON THE RECORD; THE ISSUE SURVIVED THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting for resentencing before a different judge, determined the sentencing judge who reviewed the victim impact statement in this sexual-offense case, and who granted the victim’s request to keep the victim impact statement confidential, violated CPL 390.50, which requires the judge to state the reasons, on the record, for not disclosing a victim impact statement to the defendant. The issue survived defendant’s waiver of appeal:

… [W]e find that defendant’s CPL 390.50 (2) (a) argument must survive the waiver of appeal as the Legislature has, without qualification or restriction, expressly mandated that “[t]he action of the court excepting information from disclosure shall be subject to appellate review” (CPL 390.50 [2] [a]), and courts “may not create a limitation that the Legislature did not enact” … . …

… [T]he record before us does not reflect any ruling by County Court with respect to the victim’s request to except her statement from disclosure. We therefore must conclude that the court failed to set forth “the reasons for its action” on the record, in violation of CPL 390.50 (2) (a) … . The record also does not reflect that any consideration was given to redacting the victim’s statement, leaving defendant wholly “unable to verify the accuracy of the information [therein] or meaningfully respond to it,” in further contravention of the statute … . What is clear, however, is that defendant never had the opportunity to review the victim’s statement and that County Court heavily relied upon it in fashioning its sentence. People v Ortiz, 2022 NY Slip Op 02041, Third Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: If a sentencing judge wishes to withhold a victim impact statement from the defendant, the reasons for nondisclosure must be placed on the record (CPL 390.50). This issue survives a waiver of appeal.

 

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