You are here: / THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient evidence of defendant’s default or the bank’s compliance the the notice requirements of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304:

… [Plaintiff’s representative] did not attest that he was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff or those of the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, or that the records generated by the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest were incorporated into the plaintiff’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business (see CPLR 4518[a] … ), and failed to attach any business records of the plaintiff or its predecessor in interest to his affidavit ,,, . Moreover, to the extent that the …. employee’s purported knowledge of [defendant’s] default was based upon his review of unidentified business records … , his affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . …

The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or any proof of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served [defendant]  pursuant to the terms of RPAPL 1304 … . The … employee’s affidavit was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to [defendant] in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the employee did not provide evidence of the plaintiff’s standard office mailing procedure and provided no evidence of the actual mailing … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeLoney, 2021 NY Slip Op 04655, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

/

THE INSTALLATION OF LARGE INDVIDUAL LETTERS FOR A SIGN ON THE FRONT SOFFIT OF A BUILDING CONSTITUTED “ALTERING” THE BUILDING TO WHICH LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) APPLY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OF THE SOFFIT (WHICH COLLAPSED), THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 causes of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was hired to install a sign made up of large individual letters on the front soffit of a business. Plaintiff used a ladder to climb inside the soffit through an access door to attach washers and nuts to bolts holding the letter which were passed through drilled holes by a co-worker. The floor of the soffit gave way and plaintiff fell 15 feet to the concrete below. Installing the sign constituted “altering” the building such that Labor Law 240 (1) and  241(6) applied. Also the Labor Law 200 cause of action should have survived because defendant did not demonstrate it lacked actual notice of the condition of the soffit:

… “[A]ltering,” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) [and 241 (6)] , involves “making a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure” … . Here, the evidence … failed to establish … that the injured plaintiff was not engaged in “altering” the building at the time of the accident … . …

… “[W]here a plaintiff’s injuries stem … from a dangerous condition on the premises, a landowner may be liable under Labor Law § 200 if it ‘either created the dangerous condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition'” … . …

… [Defendant] failed to establish … that it lacked actual notice of the allegedly defective condition in the soffit … . Alberici v Gold Medal Gymnastics, 2021 NY Slip Op 04651, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

/ ,

THE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF CLOSED CONTAINERS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE ITEMS BEING IN DEFENDANT’S “GRABBABLE” AREA OR BY “EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES;” CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a concurrence, determined the skimmer (a forgery device) was the product of an illegal warrantless search and should have been suppressed:

“To justify a warrantless search of a closed container incident to arrest, the People must satisfy two requirements: The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest” … . Specific to this “place” requirement, the item searched must be conducted within the immediate control or grabbable area of the suspect … . “The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances” … . …

… [T]he trooper testified that he removed the fanny pack and backpack from the apartment when he left and then placed defendant — who was in handcuffs — in the patrol vehicle. Thereafter, the trooper made a cursory search of the fanny pack and backpack on the hood of the vehicle. At the time of the search, defendant was incapable of grabbing the items as he was handcuffed and inside the trooper’s vehicle. The fanny pack and backpack were in the exclusive control of the trooper and defendant could not possibly gain possession of them or destroy any evidence in them … . …

[T]he record reflects that defendant’s demeanor and actions were not threatening, he had been pat-frisked earlier in the apartment, he was cooperative and offered no resistance when he was handcuffed and … the circumstances of defendant’s arrest did not give rise to a reasonable belief that the fanny pack or backpack contained a weapon or dangerous instrument. … [T]he trooper’s testimony at the suppression hearing did not demonstrate exigent circumstances. People v Crosse, 2021 NY Slip Op 04636, Third Dept 8-5-21

 

/ ,

FAMILY COURT RELIED ON HEARSAY (WHAT MOTHER TOLD THE CASEWORKER) IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST FATHER, NEGLECT FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court improperly relied upon hearsay to make neglect findings and the evidence was otherwise insufficient. Mother’s neglect petitions were disposed of after she admitted neglect. The instant proceeding concerned the neglect petitions against father (the respondent) to which mother was not a party. The caseworker testified about what mother had told her:

… [P]etitioner’s caseworker testified as to what the mother had told her based upon their conversations. In this regard, the caseworker stated that the mother told her that, while the middle and youngest children were with her, she had been drinking heavily, that the mother believed that she may have assaulted one of the children and that, after respondent took the children for a while, he came back to her with some vodka, which she drank. As respondent and the attorney for the children correctly argue, Family Court improperly relied on this hearsay testimony — i.e., what the mother told the caseworker — in reaching its determination … , and the error in doing so was not harmless … . Matter of Aiden J. (Armando K.), 2021 NY Slip Op 04637, Third Dept 8-5-21

 

/

PETITIONER WAITED EIGHT MONTHS WITHOUT RECEIVING A DECISION ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF HIS GRIEVANCE BEFORE FILING AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE DENIAL; PETITIONER WAS ENTITED TO THE “FUTILITY EXCEPTION” TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT HE EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE TURNING TO THE COURTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner-inmate was entitled to the “futility exception” to the requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted before bringing an Article 78 proceeding to contest the administrative ruling. Petitioner brought a grievance alleging the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) should not have reduced his pay for work in the mess hall because of his refusal to participate in certain prison programs. After the superintendent denied relief petitioner appealed to the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) but eight months passed without a decision. Then petitioner brought the Article 78:

… [P]etitioner filed his administrative appeal with CORC on December 12, 2018 and commenced this proceeding on August 19, 2019. He waited more than eight months without having received a decision — which is seven months after CORC’s 30-day limit had expired — before he commenced this proceeding. To the extent that the regulations are unclear regarding whether CORC’s failure to decide an appeal within 30 days constitutes a constructive denial, a grievant is placed in a catch-22 situation — if he or she files a CPLR article 78 proceeding before receiving a decision from CORC, DOCCS may seek dismissal based on the defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but, if the grievant does not commence a court proceeding within four months after the 30-day decision period, he or she risks the possibility of DOCCS seeking dismissal based on a statute of limitations defense … . This untenable position, which arises from the confluence of CORC’s failure to comply with the regulation’s time frame for deciding administrative appeals and the lack of clarity in a different DOCCS regulation, creates substantial prejudice to a grievant such as petitioner … . Under the circumstances, we find that exhaustion should be excused based on the futility exception. Matter of McMillian v Krygier, 2021 NY Slip Op 04638, Third Dept 8-5-21

 

/

RESPONDENT DID NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DENY PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST BY EXTENDING ITS SELF-IMPOSED DEADLINES FOR RESPONDING TO THE REQUEST (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined respondent NYS Department of Transportation did not constructively deny petitioner’s FOIL request by extending the time for a response. Therefore petitioner’s Article 78 proceeding was premature and was rendered moot by petitioner’s ultimate response to the request:

Generally, an agency must respond to a written request for records within a reasonable time and “there is no specific time period in which the agency must grant access to the records” … . The response protocol for an agency to follow is set forth in Public Officers Law § 89 (3) (a). An agency must respond within five business days and has various options — to either provide the records, deny the request or, as pertinent here, to “furnish a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, when such request will be granted or denied” … . Respondent exercised that third option through the extension notices. Matter of Save Monroe Ave., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2021 NY Slip Op 04639, Third Dept 8-4-21

 

/ ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT DURING THE PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT CONTESTING HIS CONSENT TO THE INTOXILYZER BREATH TEST; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO RAISE THAT SAME SUPPRESSION ISSUE DURING TRIAL; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s attempt, during trial, to suppress the results of the Intoxilyzer breath test was properly denied. Defense counsel had told the court, during the pretrial suppression hearing. defendant did not wish to contest the validity of his consent to the breath test and, consequently,  the prosecutor did not introduce a video of the procedure:

A defendant may move to suppress the results of a chemical test administered pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(3) (see CPL 710.20[5]) by filing a motion “within forty-five days after arraignment and before commencement of trial, or within such additional time as the court may fix upon application” (see CPL 255.20[1]). CPL 255.20(3) prescribes that for pretrial motions filed outside the 45-day limitation, the court “must entertain and decide on its merits, at any[]time before the end of the trial, any appropriate pre-trial motion based upon grounds of which the defendant could not, with due diligence, have been previously aware, or which, for other good cause, could not reasonably have been raised within the period specified.” The section also provides that any other motion not filed within the specified time “may be summarily denied.”

The record indicates that when counsel made the omnibus motion, dated September 12, 2017, defendant was well aware of the facts underlying the administration of the Intoxilyzer breath test and, for reasons that are not apparent, chose not to file a motion on that ground. People v Marte, 2021 NY Slip Op 04648, First Dept 8-5-21

 

/ , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REJECTED THE LANDLORD’S CALCULATION OF RENT OVERCHARGES FOR RENT-REGULATED APARTMENTS REMOVED FROM RENT STABILIZATION WHILE THE BUILDING WAS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined Supreme Court properly refused to consider defendant landlord’s (Whitehouse’s) calculation of rent overcharges and ordered calculation by a referee. The landlord had removed rent-regulated apartments from rent stabilization while the building received J-51 tax benefits:

We find that the motion court correctly determined that plaintiffs’ legal regulated rent should be calculated according to the default formula set forth in RSC (9 NYCRR) § 2522.6(b). Although defendants may have been following the law in deregulating apartments during the period before Roberts [13 NY3d 270] was decided (see Regina, 35 NY3d at 356), their 2012 retroactive registration of the improperly deregulated apartments was an attempt to avoid the court’s adjudication of the issues and to impose their own rent calculations rather than face a determination of the legal regulated rent within the lookback period. Casey v Whitehouse Estates, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04646, First Dept 8-5-21

 

/

IN NEW YORK A MARRIAGE WHICH HAS BEEN SOLEMNIZED IS VALID IN THE ABSENCE OF A MARRIAGE LICENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that a marriage which has been solemnized is valid in the absence of a marriage license:

There is a strong presumption favoring the validity of marriages … . While the Domestic Relations Law deems it necessary for all persons intending to be married to obtain a marriage license … , a marriage is not void for the failure to obtain a marriage license if the marriage is solemnized … . A marriage is solemnized where the parties “solemnly declare in the presence of a clergyman or magistrate and the attending witness or witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife”… . Thus, under New York law, the marriage between parties will be valid, even without a marriage license, in instances where it is solemnized … . Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 12, “[n]o particular form or ceremony is required when a marriage is solemnized as herein provided by a clergyman or magistrate, but the parties must solemnly declare in the presence of a clergyman or magistrate and the attending witness or witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife. In every case, at least one witness beside the clergyman or magistrate must be present at the ceremony.” … . Yusupov v Baraev, 2021 NY Slip Op 04634, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DUE DILIGENCE IN ASCERTAINING THE NAME OF THE PARTY REFERRED TO AS “JOHN DOE” IN THE COMPLIANT RENDERING THE ACTION TIME-BARRED; ALTHOUGH THE COURT PROPERLY DEEMED PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE NAMED PARTY TIMELY FILED NUNC PRO TUNC, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE NAMED PARTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED RETROACTIVELY ONCE THE DEFECT WAS CURED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff should not have been allowed to substitute the party’s name (here Esther Shaskos) for the “John Doe” named in the complaint because the plaintiff did not demonstrate it exercised due diligence to timely ascertain Esther’s identity. Therefore the complaint as against Esther was time-barred. As for the complaint against Elliot Shaskos, who was named in the complaint, the proof of service was never filed. Although the filing failure is not a jurisdictional defect and therefore did not preclude ruling the proof of service timely filed nunc pro tunc, the default judgment against Elliot should not have been granted retroactively when the defect was cured. Elliot was given the opportunity to answer the complaint:

Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the caption to substitute Esther for the defendant “John Doe.” The court erred in applying the “John Doe” designation authorized by CPLR 1024 and the relation-back doctrine of CPLR 203(c) to bar application of the statute of limitations, because the plaintiff failed to establish that it “made diligent efforts to ascertain the unknown party’s identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations” … . …

The failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, that may be cured by motion, or sua sponte by the court in its discretion pursuant to CPLR 2004 … . … Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to deem proof of service to have been timely filed nunc pro tunc. In granting this relief, however, the court must do so upon such terms as may be just, and only where a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (see CPLR 2001 …). The court may not make such relief retroactive, to the prejudice of a defendant, by placing the defendant in default as of a date prior to the orde … . Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the Shashos’ cross motion which was for leave to serve and file an answer, and denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against Elliot (see CPLR 320[a]). Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Shasho, 2021 NY Slip Op 04632, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

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