You are here: / THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE BANK’S STANDING TO BRING THE...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE BANK’S STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the affidavits purporting to demonstrate the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action were not accompanied by the relevant documents and therefore constituted inadmissible hearsay:

… [I]n order to establish standing, the plaintiff submitted affidavits from two contract management coordinators of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, each of whom stated that the plaintiff was in possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. However, neither affiant identified any particular document reviewed that pertained to the issue of standing, nor did they attach to their respective affidavits any admissible document to show that the plaintiff possessed the note at the time of the commencement of this action. The affidavits also failed to show that either affiant possessed personal knowledge of whether the plaintiff possessed the note at the time of the commencement of the action. Under these circumstances, the affidavits constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked any probative value (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish its standing to commence this action. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Idarecis, 2022 NY Slip Op 01144, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

/ ,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff-bank’s motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The conditional order of dismissal did not meet the requirements of CPLR 3216 and therefore did not dismiss the action as abandoned:

… [T]he conditional order of dismissal “was defective in that it failed to state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice ‘will serve as a basis for a motion’ by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute” … . Moreover, there was no indication that the plaintiff’s counsel was present at the status conference at which the Supreme Court issued the conditional order of dismissal, nor was there evidence that the conditional order of dismissal was ever properly served upon the plaintiff … . In addition, notwithstanding the statement in the conditional order of dismissal that “more than one year ha[d] elapsed since the joinder of issue,” there is no dispute that issue was not joined … .. Accordingly, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal, and to restore the action to the active calendar…. . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Beckford, 2022 NY Slip Op 01143, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

/ , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304, including compliance with the “one envelope” rule:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish … that it strictly complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . Moreover, in support of their cross motion, the defendants … demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff included additional material in the same envelope as the RPAPL 1304 notice, in violation of the separate mailing requirement of RPAPL 1304(2) … . US Bank N.A. v Kaplan, 2022 NY Slip Op 01201, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

/ , , ,

THE BANK FAILED TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON IN ITS AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; SUPREME COURT’S DETERMINATION THE BANK HAD COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE PRECLUDING RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the failure to identify and attach the documents demonstrating the defendants’ default in this foreclosure action rendered the bank’s affidavit inadmissible hearsay. The court noted that Supreme Court’s determination the bank had complied with the notice requirements of RPAL 1304 was the law of the case precluding reconsideration of the issue pursuant to defendants’ cross motion:

The plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Richard L. Penno, a vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Based upon his review of Wells Fargo’s books and records concerning the defendants’ loan, Penno attested to the defendants’ default in payment. However, Penno did not identify the records he relied upon in order to attest to the defendants’ default and did not attach them to his affidavit … . “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence, a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . Thus, Penno’s assertions as to the contents of Wells Fargo’s servicing records were inadmissible … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, a review of records maintained in the normal course of business does not vest an affiant with personal knowledge … . …

… [C]ontrary to the defendants’ … contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 and the notice of default provision of the mortgage agreement. The plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and the notice of default provision of the mortgage agreement were both considered and decided in the plaintiff’s favor on its motion for summary judgment. Therefore, while it is true that a defense based on noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 may be raised at any time … , the doctrine of law of the case precluded the court from reconsidering those issues on the defendants’ cross motion … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Ramanababu, 2022 NY Slip Op 01199, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

/ , ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DEFICIENT; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT RENDERED THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action was deficient, and the failure to submit the business records referred to in the bank’s affidavit rendered the affidavit inadmissible hearsay:

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Becky J. Layman, an officer of the plaintiff. Layman’s assertions that the plaintiff complied with the notice of default provision of the mortgage and that the plaintiff complied with the notice provision of RPAPL 1304 were insufficient, since she failed to provide proof of the actual mailings or attest to knowledge of the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures … . Layman’s affidavit was also insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the defendant defaulted under the note and mortgage, since her purported knowledge was based upon review of unidentified business records which were not attached to her affidavit … . Thus, her assertions regarding the defendant’s default, without the business records upon which she relied in making those assertions, constituted inadmissible hearsay … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Campbell, 2022 NY Slip Op 01198, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

/ , ,

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COULD NOT COMMENCE A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WHILE THE DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS STILL REPRESENTED HIM, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACTION WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a decision addressing several issues not summarized here, determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine rendered the legal malpractice action timely:

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations until June 24, 2013, when the Supreme Court … vacated the March 18, 2013 order, and … granted W & H’s [defendants-attorneys] motion for leave to withdraw as counsel. Inasmuch as W & H’s motion to withdraw as counsel, which was opposed by Michele [plaintiff’s decedent] , was initially denied, Michele could not be expected to commence an action to recover damages for legal malpractice against W & H while the representation continued … . Accordingly, the court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the legal malpractice cause of action as time-barred. Tulino v Hiller, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 01197, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

/ , , , ,

IN THIS TENANT HARASSMENT AND PRIVATE NUISANCE ACTION BY TENANTS AGAINST THE LANDLORD, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENTIRELY PROHIBITING VIDEO CAMERAS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the tenant-plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the landlord from maintaining video cameras in the interior of the building. Supreme Court had only prohibited video cameras outside the bathrooms. The tenants alleged the landlord was taking actions designed to force them to leave and alleged causes of action for tenant harassment and private nuisance:

Generally, the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court … . “[A] movant must establish (1) a probability of success on the merits, (2) a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and (3) a balance of the equities in the movant’s favor” … . In granting, in part, those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from operating the video cameras in the interior portions of the property and from conducting inspections on the property without reasonable notice, the court properly, in effect, determined that the plaintiffs had established a probability of success on the merits, a danger of irreparable injury, and that the equities favor them. The court, however, improvidently exercised its discretion in limiting that preliminary injunction to enjoining the defendants only from operating video cameras that capture persons entering or exiting any bathrooms in the property. Under the circumstances of this case, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety, and preliminarily enjoined the defendants from operating video cameras in the interior portions of the property. Suchdev v Grunbaum, 2022 NY Slip Op 01195, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

/ , , , ,

PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS STATED CLAIMS FOR TENANT HARASSMENT, PRIVATE NUISANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY, WATER, HEAT AND VENTILATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-tenants stated claims for tenant (statutory) harassment, private nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages in connection with failure to provide electricity, water, heat and ventilation:

The complaint states a cause of action for harassment under Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 27-2005 (d) and 27-2115 (m) … . Namely, it sufficiently alleges that defendants failed to provide essential services, including electricity, water, heat, and ventilation, resulting in violations of the Housing Maintenance Code, and that that failure was calculated to and did cause plaintiffs to vacate their apartment … . …

Defendants do not oppose the reinstatement of the claims for private nuisance or intentional infliction of emotional distress, opting to litigate those claims on the merits. However, contrary to defendants’ contention, punitive damages may be appropriate under both causes of action if the alleged acts are shown to be intentional or malicious … . Carlson v Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01117, First Dept 2-22-22

 

/ , ,

WILLIAMS, THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN SLOWING DOWN FOR A WORK CREW AHEAD; THE WILLIAMS CAR WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY A POLICE CAR PURSUING ANOTHER VEHICLE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this traffic accident case. A police officer pursuing another vehicle rear-ended the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger as the driver (Williams) was slowing down for a work crew:

Williams’s evidence in support of his motion demonstrated prima facie that he was operating his vehicle in a lawful, reasonable manner given the circumstances on the expressway at the time, and that he was not otherwise culpable in causing the police car to strike the rear of his vehicle. The burden having shifted, plaintiff and the City defendants each failed to offer evidence as would raise a factual issue regarding Williams’s comparable negligence in the cause of the accident … . The City defendants failed to proffer a nonnegligent explanation for rear-ending Williams’s vehicle, and the claim that the rear-ended vehicle stopped short, standing alone, is insufficient as a nonnegligent explanation for an accident … . Regardless of whether the actions of the police in this incident are to be considered under the reckless standard set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, the nonliability of Williams, given the unrefuted evidence of his nonculpable role in this accident, remains unchanged … . Grant v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 01121, First Dept 2-22-22

 

/ , ,

THE TERM “ECONOMIC SECURITY” IN THE NYU FACULTY HANDBOOK DID NOT PROHIBIT A POLICY (THE “REF” POLICY) TYING A TENURED FACULTY MEMBERS’ SALARY-REDUCTION TO THE AMOUNT OF GRANTS PROCURED IN A GIVEN YEAR; THE REF POLICY WAS NOT A DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE; A SPECIFIC SALARY FIGURE IN A TENURED FACULTY MEMBER’S CONTRACT, HOWEVER, COULD NOT BE REDUCED PURSUANT TO THE REF POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice OIng, modifying Supreme Court, determined: (1) the term “economic security” in the faculty handbook was prefatory language that did not prohibit the university (NYU) from tying salary reductions for tenured faculty to the amount of grant-money procured by a faculty member (the REF policy); (2) the salary reductions were not part of disciplinary procedure; and (3) the provision in the contract with one of the faculty members, Samuels, setting his salary at a specific amount prohibited the salary reductions tied to grants as to him:

Assuming that the term “economic security” gives rise to contractual rights, we reject the argument advanced by the Professors and amici curiae that “economic security” is an ambiguous term of art and that custom and usage in academia define it as prohibiting retroactive salary reductions pursuant to such policies as the REF Policy. * * *

A faculty member’s failure to comply with the REF Policy is simply not conduct that is subject to discipline. * * *

We find that NYU breached the terms of the “2001 Contract” when it reduced Professor Samuels’s salary pursuant to the REF Policy and that he is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. Monaco v New York Univ., 2022 NY Slip Op 01125, First Dept 2-22-22

 

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