You are here: / THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was insufficient. The court noted that, under the facts, standing to contest the bank’s compliance with RPAPL 1304 was personal to each borrower, one borrower could not assert that defense on behalf of another borrower:

JPMorgan submitted an affidavit, entitled an “Affidavit of Mailing,” signed by James A. Ranaldi, an “Authorized Signer” employed by JPMorgan. Ranaldi, however, did not attest to personal knowledge of the actual mailings. Nor did he state that he had personal knowledge “of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Although Ranaldi asserted, based upon his review of business records associated with the subject loan, that “a ninety-day (90) pre-foreclosure notice dated 12/04/2009 was sent by regular first class and certified mail under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service addressed to [the defendant at the subject property],” “it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted”… . The records attached to Ranaldi’s affidavit provided evidence that the 90-day notice was sent to the defendant by certified mail. But none of the documents, considered individually or together, including the copies of the notice letters themselves, provided any information as to whether the 90-day notice was sent to the defendant by regular first-class mail … . Without business records proving the matter asserted, Ranaldi’s “unsubstantiated and conclusory” statement, by itself, was insufficient to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed to the defendant by first-class mail … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Kutch, 2022 NY Slip Op 01066, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE ARM AND FOOT PEDAL OF AN ELLIPTICAL MACHINE AT DEFENDANT’S GYM BROKE OFF; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT OR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant gym was not entitled to summary judgment in this personal injury action. Plaintiff alleged the arm and foot pedal of the elliptical machine she was using detached. Defendant did not demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the defect or that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury:

Although the defendants submitted a transcript of deposition testimony from their employee regarding the defendants’ general practice of testing exercise equipment each weekday, they failed to present any specific evidence as to when the subject elliptical machine was last inspected relative to the subject incident. Mere reference to general practices, with no evidence regarding any specific inspection of the equipment in question, is insufficient to establish lack of constructive notice … . …

… [P]articipants are not deemed to have assumed risks that are concealed or unreasonably increased over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport or recreational activity … . Here, the risk of the left arm and foot pedal of an elliptical machine detaching or hinging out is not inherent in the recreational activity of exercising on an elliptical machine in a gym. Rather, the alleged defective condition of the elliptical machine enhanced the risk of injuries … . Buffalino v XSport Fitness, 2022 NY Slip Op 00998, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

/ ,

TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON A PATIENT’S FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME), THE NO-FAULT INSURER MUST SHOW BOTH THAT THE PATIENT DID NOT SHOW UP AND THE REQUEST FOR THE IME AND THE SCHEDULING OF THE IME COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIRED TIME-FRAMES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-insurer’s motion for summary judgment in this no-fault insurance action should not have been granted. Although an insurer need not pay no-fault claims if the patient did not appear for an independent medical examination (IME), in order to warrant an award of  summary judgment the insurer must demonstrate compliance with the required time frames for requesting and scheduling the IME:

The failure to appear for a properly scheduled independent medical examination (IME) requested by the insurer “when, and as often as, it may reasonably require is a breach of a condition precedent to coverage under the no-fault policy” and vitiates coverage ab initio … . However, to meet its prima facie burden for summary judgment where it has denied a claim for no-fault benefits based on a patient’s failure to appear for an IME, the insurer must establish that it requested IMEs in accordance with the procedures and time frames set forth in the no-fault implementing regulations and that the patient did not appear … . Because it is impossible to discern from the record in each case here whether plaintiff complied with the requisite time frames requiring it to request IMEs within 15 days of receiving appellants’ claims and scheduling the IMEs for within 30 days of receiving their claims (11 NYCRR 65-3.5[b],[d] ), plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment … . American Tr. Ins. Co. v Martinez, 2022 NY Slip Op 00963, First Dept 2-15-22

 

/ , ,

SUPREME COURT, IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT “AFFILIATES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE OF A RELEASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Courts should have simply denied the motion to dismiss instead of deciding what parties were included in the term “affiliates” in the release at issue:

Supreme Court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that the word “affiliates” in the release entered into between plaintiffs and Siddiqui could not be read to include defendants Cernich and Huan Tseng … . The word “affiliates” may apply to individuals, and is “not commonly understood to apply only to entities” … . Furthermore, the arbitrator’s conclusion, in an earlier arbitration against different parties, that the release did not apply to nonparty Ming Dang does not serve as a conclusive basis for finding that the release did not apply to defendants. Accordingly, the scope of the release language with respect to Cernich and Tseng was ambiguous, and Supreme Court should have simply denied the motion to dismiss without determining the meaning of the release language as a matter of law. Apollo Mgt., Inc. v Cernich, 2022 NY Slip Op 00964, First Dept 2-15-22​

 

/

NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES OR THE WORK, INCLUDING THE WORK OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO APPARENTLY MOPPED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER AND PROSPECTIVE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action against the building owner (Grand) and the prospective purchaser of the building (Empire) should have been dismissed. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor which apparently had just been mopped by a co-worker. Neither Grand nor Empire had general supervisory authority over the premises and did not supervise or control the work of plaintiff or the co-worker:

The building was owned by defendant Grand but was under a contract of sale to defendant Empire, with a closing date of February 1, 2017. Under the contract of sale, Empire was given access to the premises prior to closing to perform renovations and to stage and lease the apartments. Empire hired plaintiff’s employer Infinity to act as general contractor for the renovations. According to the record, Empire did not have any employees at the premises on the date of the accident and did not supervise Infinity’s work. Grand had no employees or agents at the premises full time, but an employee of a company related to Grand would occasionally visit the building to check that there were no problems and that everything was clean. The employee visited the building approximately four or five times, approximately twice in the four months prior to the accident, and once during construction. No one employed by Grand regularly supervised the construction ongoing at the premises. Arnold v Empire 326 Grand LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00965, First Dept 2-15-22

 

/ , ,

THE NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION (HRA) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE PROCEEDS OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR-ACCIDENT SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THE SETTLEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES; PLAINTIFF WAS BARRED FROM RECOVERY OF MEDICAL COSTS BECAUSE HER BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS WAS LESS THAN $50,000 (INS LAW 5102) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined no part of plaintiff’s automobile accident settlement was available to satisfy a medical lien held by the NYC Human Resources Administration (HRA) because the settlement did not include medical expenses:

HRA asserted a lien on the proceeds of plaintiff’s settlement of an action arising out of an automobile accident in an amount representing the total amount of the medical bills it paid in connection with the treatment of the injuries plaintiff sustained in the accident (see Social Services Law § 104-b). However, plaintiff was barred from suing for medical expenses, because her basic economic losses were less than $50,000 (see Insurance Law § 5102[a]). Moreover, in light of the particular record before us, no portion of the proceeds of the settlement represents medical expenses, and HRA may not recover any portion of the proceeds for its medical costs … . Marmol v Mutino, 2022 NY Slip Op 00970, First Dept 2-15-22

​

/ ,

IN AN ACTION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ALLOW PETITIONER ACCESS TO RESPONDENTS’ ABUTTING BUILDING TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING, RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO LICENSE FEES, ATTORNEY’S FEES, ENGINEERING FEES, ETC., ASSOCIATED WITH PROTECTING THEIR BUILDING AND TO COMPENSATE FOR INTERFERERENCE WITH THE USE OF THEIR BUILDING, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY DAMAGE TO RESPONDENTS’ BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, affirmed the grant of a license to petitioner, pursuant to RPAPL 881, to enter respondents’ abutting property to protect the abutting property during construction work on petitioner’s building, but vacated or reduced some of the specific costs and/or damages awarded. The First Department noted that attorney’s fees, license fees and engineering fees, etc., associated with the respondents’ efforts to protect their building and the loss of use and enjoyment of their building during construction are properly assessed to the petitioner:

What petitioner seeks is essentially to compel respondents to grant it a license on its own terms. However, as we have recognized, because “[t]he respondent to an 881 petition has not sought out the intrusion and does not derive any benefit from it . . . [e]quity requires that the owner compelled to grant access should not have to bear any costs resulting from the access” … . Thus, the grant of licenses pursuant to RPAPL 881 often warrants the award of contemporaneous license fees … . Contrary to petitioner’s contention that a license fee constitutes a windfall unless there are some actual damages, such as lost business, we have found that a license fee is warranted “where the granted license will entail substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property during the [license] period, thus decreasing the value of the property during that time” … .

Similarly, a compulsory licensor should be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ and engineering fees … . Matter of Panasia Estate, Inc. v 29 W. 19 Condominium, 2022 NY Slip Op 00975, First Dept 2-15-22

/ ,

PLAINTIFF, A DISSOLVED CORPORATION, PROPERLY PURSUED CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES WHICH AROSE PRIOR TO DISSOLUTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-dissolved-corporation properly pursued claims and liabilities which arose prior to dissolution:

A dissolved corporation is permitted to pursue claims and liabilities that arose prior to dissolution as part of the winding up process (Business Corporation Law §§ 1005[a][1]; 1006[a][4]; [b] …). Plaintiff’s commencement of this litigation, as well as the settlement of other predissolution claims against defendant, and its use of settlement funds to satisfy its outstanding liabilities in the wage violations case, are expressly contemplated and authorized by Business Corporation Law § 1006(a)(4). Thus, it was error to find that plaintiff’s dissolution resulted in it lacking capacity to maintain this action against defendant for work performed before plaintiff was dissolved … .

Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff’s winding up period has not been so extended as to be considered unreasonable … . TADCO Constr. Corp. v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 00990, First Dept 2-15-22

 

/ , , ,

THE NYC LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REMITTED THE MATTER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION CONCERNING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN WHICH THE TENANTS PURPORTED TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION FOR LOFT LAW COVERAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the NYC Loft Board properly remitted the matter for further proceedings in this proceeding involving a settlement agreement in which the tenants purported to withdraw their application for Loft Law coverage:

… [T]he matter [is] remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to remand to the New York City Loft Board for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

In accordance with its regulations (see 29 RCNY § 1-06 [j] [5]), the Loft Board reviewed and rejected the parties’ proposed settlement agreement as perpetuating an illegal living arrangement. The rationality of that determination is not before us … . Under these limited circumstances, it was not irrational for the Board to remand for further proceedings, thereby declining to give effect to a provision of the settlement agreement in which tenants purported to withdraw their application for Loft Law coverage. Matter of Callen v New York City Loft Bd., 2022 NY Slip Op 00957, Ct App 2-15-22

 

/ ,

PURSUANT TO THE LOFT LAW AND THE REAL PROPERTY LAW, THE LANDLORD WAS ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THE TENANCY AND REGAIN POSSESSION OF THE LOFT IN A HOLDOVER PROCEEDING (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the the Loft Law did not prohibit the landlord, Aurora, from terminating the tenancy and regaining possession of the loft by a holdover proceeding. The opinion and the dissenting opinion are comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Aurora Associates LLC, the owner of Loft 3B at 78 Reade Street in Manhattan, commenced this holdover proceeding to recover possession and terminate the tenancy of the current occupant. Summary judgment was granted to the tenant on the ground that Aurora could not terminate his tenancy because the loft unit was subject to rent stabilization. We must decide whether a loft unit located in an interim multiple dwelling covered by the provisions of the Loft Law but exempt from the rent regulation provisions of that statute by operation of a sale of the prior tenant’s rights and improvements is otherwise subject to rent stabilization. We hold that it is not … . * * *

As the Housing Court Judge explained, “[T]he core of the parties’ dispute is the rent regulatory status of the subject premises” because “[I]f the subject premises is unregulated, termination of a tenancy pursuant to Real Property Law … 232-a is a remedy available to Petitioner,” and “[i]f the subject premises is rent-stabilized, RPL … 232-a is not a remedy available to Petitioner.” * * *

Here, the prior owner purchased rights and improvements in a particular unit in this Loft Law-eligible building, removing that unit from the Loft Law’s rent regulation provisions, entitling Aurora to charge a market rent and, pursuant to Real Property Law … 232-a, to regain possession of the apartment by means of a holdover proceeding. Matter of Aurora Assoc. LLC v Locatelli, 2022 NY Slip Op 00958, CtApp 2-15-22

 

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