You are here: / THE BANK’S FAILURE TO ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN...

Search Results

/ ,

THE BANK’S FAILURE TO ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVIT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The affidavit of the loan servicer’s vice president (Lee) was deficient in content and did not identify or attach the records referenced:

Lee failed to aver to familiarity with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the entity that generated the records or establish that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient’s own records and routinely relied upon by the recipient in its own business … .

… [E]ven if Lee’s affidavit set forth a proper foundation for the admissibility of the unspecified records he relied on … , Lee “failed to identify the records upon which [ ]he relied in making the statements, and the plaintiff failed to submit copies of the records themselves” … . It is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Miller, 2021 NY Slip Op 05690, Second Dept 10-20-21

Similar issues and result in Freedom Mtge. Corp. v Engel, 2021 NY Slip Op 05694, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

/

A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS ABSENT GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ late motion for summary judgment should not have been considered on the merits:

CPLR 3212(a) provides, inter alia, that the court may set a date after which no motion for summary judgment may be made, and “[i]f no such date is set by the court, such motion shall be made no later than one hundred twenty days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown.” “‘[G]ood cause’ in CPLR 3212(a) requires a showing of good cause for the delay in making the motion” … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ motion was, in effect, for summary judgment. The plaintiffs do not dispute that they did not file their motion within the period specified by CPLR 3212(a), and no good cause for the delay was shown. Thus, the Supreme Court erred in considering the motion on the merits … , and should have denied the motion. Bennett v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 05687, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

/ , ,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION, ANY DEFICIENCIES IN PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (CPLR 3012-B) CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGING PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF STANDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over a partial dissent, determined deficiencies in the certificate of merit filed by plaintiff’s counsel in this foreclosure action (pursuant to CPLR 3012-b) cannot be the basis for defendants’ motion to dismiss alleging plaintiff’s lack of standing:

This appeal implicates the extent to which there is interplay between a CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss in the context of a residential mortgage foreclosure action, the attorney certification requirements of CPLR 3012-b, and the moving party’s burden of proof. For reasons analyzed below, we hold that a defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on the ground of the plaintiff’s lack of standing does not meet the affirmative burden of proof by merely relying upon any defects that might exist with the certificate of merit submitted by the plaintiff’s attorney under CPLR 3012-b, or otherwise, if the certificate of merit fails to address all potential aspects of standing. * * *

… [I]n a mortgage foreclosure action, a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) on the ground of the plaintiff’s lack of standing is not necessarily determined based on the adequacy or inadequacy of the certificate of merit filed by the plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to CPLR 3012-b. … The complaint serves the legal purpose of giving notice to defendants of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences intended to be proved, and the material elements of each cause of action … . The certificate of merit serves the ministerial and ethical purpose of requiring counsel to take good faith steps to assure that the action has merit, and to certify to the best of counsel’s knowledge, information, and belief that a reasonable basis exists for commencing the action and that the plaintiff has standing to recover on the note underlying the action.

Counsel’s reasonable beliefs contained in a certificate of merit are irrelevant to whether defendants, in moving to dismiss a complaint under CPLR 3211(a), establish their own defined burden of proof for the dispositive relief of dismissal. Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Matamoro, 2021 NY Slip Op 05741, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

/ ,

RETRIAL VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY; DEFENDANT HAD MADE A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL WITH PREJUDICE AND DID NOT CONSENT TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE JURY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the retrial and dismissing the indictment, determined the trial court’s failure to procure defendant’s consent to discharge the jury after defendant’s motion for a mistrial with prejudice triggered the protection against double jeopardy:

Double jeopardy bars a retrial except as to a defendant who has requested or consented to the mistrial … . Here, the record does not show that either defendant consented to a mistrial without prejudice. Defendants initially made general motions for a mistrial, but on the next day they expressly limited their motions to requests for a mistrial with prejudice. Accordingly, when the court announced its ruling shortly afterwards, it should have obtained defendants’ unequivocal consent before discharging the first jury or else have continued the trial with the same jury … . The retrial thus violated the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy, and these prohibitions require reversal of defendants’ convictions and dismissal of the indictment … . Defendants’ double jeopardy claim does not require preservation, although it may be expressly waived … . However, there was no such waiver here. People v Lantigua, 2021 NY Slip Op 05671, First Dept 10-19-21

 

/ , ,

THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS PRETEXTUAL, OSTENSIBLY BASED ON A BURNED-OUT LICENSE-PLATE LIGHT; BUT THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE CANINE SNIFF BASED UPON A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; THEREFORE THE MATTER WAS BEYOND REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the canine sniff was justified by a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. The traffic stop was pretextual, ostensibly based on a burned-out license-plate light:

In the course of a stop predicated on the observation of traffic violations … defendant consented to a search of the backseat of his vehicle. Instead of conducting that search, the police officer walked his canine around the exterior of the vehicle and, in mere seconds, the canine alerted to the trunk. Defendant argues that law enforcement lacked founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and, thus, unlawfully conducted the exterior canine sniff search.

A canine sniff search of a vehicle’s exterior is lawful if police possess a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot … . Determinations regarding the existence of a founded suspicion of criminality involve mixed questions of law and fact … . Therefore, our review is “limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts’ determinations” … . …

Based on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, including the officers’ observations prior to and during the stop, there is record support for the determination that a founded suspicion of criminal activity existed here and, thus, the issue is beyond further review … .

From the dissent:

Mr. Blandford’s case illustrates a troubling aspect of police behavior: law enforcement can pursue someone they suspect of criminal behavior without a founded suspicion of criminality, wait for the right moment to stop that person for a minor traffic infraction, and then serve up a stew of flavorless facts to transform a stop in which they have no intrinsic interest into the search they sought before they had any evidentiary basis to suspect wrongdoing. Although this case illustrates that problem, its resolution should be much simpler than resolution of the systemic problem: here, the officers did not possess information sufficient to justify the canine search. People v Blandford, 2021 NY Slip Op 05619, CtApp 10-14-21

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE DID NOT SEE THE PEDESTRIAN HE STRUCK UNTIL AFTER THE CONTACT OCCURRED; DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY-DOCTRINE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court) determined defendant’s allegations did not support the “emergency” defense in this vehicle-pedestrian accident case:

Defendant maintains that he did not see plaintiff before she was struck by his vehicle and that she was not in the crosswalk when he began turning onto the avenue; it was only after plaintiff was struck that defendant observed her in the crosswalk. “Without having perceived or reacted to any emergency, the defendant may not rely on the emergency doctrine to excuse [his] conduct” … . De Diaz v Klausner, 2021 NY Slip Op 05624, First Dept 10-14-21

 

/ ,

THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO STAB THE VICTIM WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s assault convictions, determined the evidence defendant shared the co-defendant’s intent to stab the victim was insufficient:

Defendant’s convictions of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree, charged under an acting in concert theory, were not supported by legally sufficient evidence …  These charges required proof that when the codefendant stabbed the victim, defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to do so; defendant was not convicted of any assault crimes where his liability was based on his intent to commit robbery. During a robbery attempt, the codefendant stabbed the victim from behind several times with a small knife. However, there was no evidence that defendant, who was standing in front of the victim and restraining him, knew that the codefendant had a knife or was planning to use it. “[T]he use of the knife was not open and obvious” … , and defendant released the victim within seconds of the stabbing. Under these circumstances, the record does not support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was aware of the use of the knife but continued to participate in the assault … . Accordingly, the evidence did not establish defendant’s accessorial liability (see Penal Law § 20.00) for these crimes. People v Grosso, 2021 NY Slip Op 05640, First Dept 10-14-21

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DOCTOR PRACTICED IN THE BRONX FOR PART OF EACH WEEK, THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF HIS BUSINESS AND HIS RESIDENCE WERE IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS TREATED; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE FROM BRONX TO WESTCHESTER COUNTY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined Supreme Court had properly granted defendants’ motion for a change of venue from Bronx County to Westchester County in this medical malpractice action. The defendant doctor (Goldstein) was described by plaintiff as an “individually-owned business” with a “principal office” in Bronx County. Dr. Goldstein treats some patients in Bronx County. But plaintiff was treated by Dr. Goldstein in Westchester County, where defendant business (Westmed) is located and where Dr. Goldstein resides:

Under CPLR 503(d), “[a] partnership or an individually-owned business shall be deemed a resident of any county in which it has its principal office, as well as the county in which the partner or individual owner suing or being sued actually resides.” * * *

While … registration documents confirmed … that Dr. Goldstein also worked in the Bronx, the venue statute does not deem an individually-owned business a resident of every county where it has an office or transacts business. To conclude otherwise would read the phrase “principal office” out of the statute. Lividini v Goldstein, 2021 NY Slip Op 05618, CtApp 10-14-21

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS A DINNER GUEST IN HIS FRIEND’S APARTMENT WHEN THE POLICE RAIDED IT; OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING THE RAID LED TO A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE APARTMENT; DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE RECEIVED MAIL AT THE APARTMENT; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH AND THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive, two-judge dissent, determined defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied without holding a hearing. The majority concluded defendant did not sufficiently allege standing to contest to search. Defendant was a dinner guest in his friend’s apartment at the time it was raided by the police. Evidence observed by the police during the raid was used to procure the search warrant:

CPL 710.60 (1) requires that a motion for suppression of physical evidence must state the ground or grounds of the motion and must contain sworn allegations of fact. CPL 710.60 (3) permits summary denial of a suppression motion where the motion papers do not provide adequate sworn allegations of fact … . The suppression court did not abuse its discretion in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, that branch of defendant’s motion which was to suppress the physical evidence recovered upon the search of the apartment pursuant to a search warrant that had been executed after his arrest, because the allegations in the motion papers were insufficient to warrant a hearing.

… In denying defendant’s motion, the suppression court stated that “defendant has failed to sufficiently allege standing to challenge the search of the subject premises,” which is the gravamen of our holding today.  Defendant’s remaining arguments addressed by the dissent, including the assertion that dinner guests have an expectation of privacy in the home of their hosts, are academic.

From the dissent:

Mr. Ibarguen’s [defendant’s] motion papers allege that he was a lawful invitee whose mail was delivered to that apartment and Mr. Ibarguen testified to having been at dinner at his friends’ house “all night.” Those facts support his claim that as a social guest, he held a legitimate expectation of privacy in at least some part of the searched apartment enabling him to challenge the legality of the warrantless search and suppress evidence recovered therein. People v Ibarguen, 2021 NY Slip Op 05617, CtApp 10-14-21

 

/ , , ,

A LOAN AGREEMENT WHICH ALLOWS THE LENDER TO CONVERT THE BALANCE TO SHARES OF STOCK AT A FIXED DISCOUNT CAN VIOLATE THE USURY STATUTE, WHICH WOULD THEREBY RENDER THE AGREEMENT VOID AB INITIO (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a partial dissent. answered two questions posed by the Second Circuit in the affirmative. “1. Whether a stock conversion option that permits a lender, in its sole discretion, to convert any outstanding balance to shares of stock at a fixed discount should be treated as interest for the purpose of determining whether the transaction violates N.Y. Penal Law § 190.40, the criminal usury law. 2. If the interest charged on a loan is determined to be criminally usurious under N.Y. Penal Law § 190.40, whether the contract is void ab initio pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-511:”

GeneSYS ID, Inc. (“GeneSYS”) is a publicly held corporation that produces various types of medical supplies. Adar Bays, LLC is a limited liability company based in Florida. On May 24, 2016, Adar Bays loaned GeneSYS $35,000. In exchange, GeneSYS gave Adar Bays a note with eight percent interest that would mature in one year. The note included an option for Adar Bays to convert some or all of the debt into shares of GeneSYS stock at a discount of 35% from the lowest trading price for GeneSYS stock over the 20 days prior to the date on which Adar Bays requested a conversion. Adar Bays could exercise its option starting 180 days after the note was issued and could do so all at once or in separate partial conversions. …

Six months and four days after the note was issued … Adar Bays requested conversion of $5,000 of debt into 439,560 shares of stock. GeneSYS refused … seeking to renegotiate the loan. … GeneSYS was trading for $0.024 per share, the conversion price was $0.011. Adar Bays … sued GeneSYS in the … Southern District of New York for breach of contract. GeneSYS filed a motion to dismiss arguing the contract was void because the loan’s rate of interest, including both the stated interest and conversion option, exceeded the criminal usury rate of 25%. Adar Bays, LLC v GeneSYS ID, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05616 CtApp 10-14-21

 

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