You are here: / IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY DID NOT FILE AN AFFIRMATION...

Search Results

/ , , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY DID NOT FILE AN AFFIRMATION AS REQUIRED BY AN ADMINSTRATIVE ORDER; THE MAJORITY DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT PERFECT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE COULD AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THIS APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined defendant in this foreclosure action could not raise the plaintiff’s failure to comply with an Administrative Order (AO) because it could have been raised on a prior appeal which was not perfected. The dissent argued the court could and should address the “AO” issue on this appeal:

From the dissent:

… [A] plaintiff’s attorney is required to affirm after conferring with a representative of the plaintiff and upon the attorney’s “own inspection and other reasonable inquiry” that the pleadings and submissions “contain no false statements of fact or law.”  …

… [P]laintiff’s attorney was required to file the affidavit conforming with AO/431/11 and AO/208/13, an issue that was directly raised in defendant’s motion to vacate and could have been addressed by this Court had defendant perfected his appeal from the court’s April 2018 order. In an instance such as this, this Court “has the authority to entertain a second appeal in the exercise of [our] discretion, even where a prior appeal on the same issue has been dismissed for failure to prosecute” … . Given that the filing of an attorney affirmation is mandatory and, at the latest, must be filed five business days before a scheduled auction … , I believe we should exercise our discretion and address the issue of noncompliance (id.). To assure the integrity of the foreclosure process, which is the entire objective of the Administrative Orders, we should modify the order by requiring a continued stay of any auction sale pending the submission of a compliant attorney affirmation. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sage, 2021 NY Slip Op 04583, Third Dept 7-29-21

 

/ ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE ROAD LEADING TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY WAS PROPERLY CERTIFIED “ABANDONED” SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS MAINTENANCE; AND PETITIONER STATED AN EQUAL-PROTECTION CLAIM UNDER 42 USC 1983 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined there were questions of fact whether the road (Van Slyke Road) leading to petitioner’s property should have been certified “abandoned” such that the town did not have to maintain it. The two dissenters argued petitioner did not state an equal-protection claim alleging selective enforcement under 42 USC 1983:

Petitioners assert that there are many other roads in the Town that have no outlet — with no or few residences situated on them — that are maintained by the Town. Specifically, petitioners point to Snell Road and Hunt Road as being roughly equivalent to Van Slyke Road. Like Van Slyke Road, these roads are dead ends, are comprised of compressed dirt and gravel, and have only one residence. Unlike Van Slyke Road, the Town maintains these roads. … [V]iewing these allegations liberally, petitioners have stated an equal protection claim under 42 USC § 1983,  * * *

… [W]e find that triable issues of fact exist as to the use and condition of Van Slyke Road such that neither party is entitled to summary judgment on the abandonment claim … . Matter of Fernandez v Town of Benson, 2021 NY Slip Op 04584, Third Dept 7-29-21

 

/ , , , ,

SEPARATE TRIALS WERE HELD ON THE TORT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING CAUSED BY RENOVATION OF DEFENDANT’S NEIGHBORING BUILDING; THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN EACH ACTION WERE BASED UPON THE SAME EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF REPAIR AND ALTERNATE LIVING EXPENSES BUT THE AMOUNTS OF THE AWARDS DIFFERED; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ENTERED THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLUS INTEREST AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, AS THE APPEALABLE FINAL JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an extensive opinion by Justice Moulton, addressed several unusual issues stemming from the allegation the renovation of defendant’s neighboring property damaged plaintiffs’ property. Two separate trials were held: a jury trial on tort (negligence) claims; and a nonjury trial on breach of contract claims (i.e., the contract allowing defendants access to plaintiffs’ property to facilitate the renovation). In the nonjury breach of contract action plaintiffs were awarded $6,255,007 for repair costs and $1,152,000 for alternate living expenses. In the jury trial (tort action) plaintiffs were awarded $5,000,000 for repair and $500,000 for alternate living expenses. The issues decided in plaintiff’s appeal are: the breach of contract judgment is appealable as a final judgment; Supreme Court properly precluded expert testimony on the loss of market value in plaintiffs’ home. The issues decided in defendant’s cross appeals are: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the breach of contract judgment and adopt the jury’s tort judgment; plaintiffs were entitled to conditional contractual indemnification from defendant. The final judgment which was entered used the breach of contract (nonjury trial) damages, plus interest and attorney’s fees totaling over $12 million. With respect to whether the judgment was appealable as a final judgment, the court wrote:

Our conclusion that the contract judgment is a final judgment starts with the definition of a judgment. “A judgment is the determination of the rights of the parties in an action or special proceeding and may be either interlocutory or final” (CPLR 5011; see also CPLR 105 [k] [“The word ‘judgment’ means a final or interlocutory judgment”]). “[A] fair working definition of the concept can be stated as follows: a ‘final’ order or judgment is one that disposes of all of the causes of action between the parties in the action or proceeding and leaves nothing for further judicial action apart from mere ministerial matters”  … . Shah v 20 E. 64th St., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04587, First Dept 7-29-21

 

/ , ,

THE MAJORITY DETERMINED DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY ENTERED WAS NOT PRESERVED; THE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF HIS BOYKIN RIGHTS AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s argument that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered was rejected by the majority as unpreserved. The dissent agreed the issue was not preserved but argued the judge’s failure to adequately inform defendant of the Boykin rights warranted reversal in the interest of justice:

From the Dissent:

Mindful that County Court was not required “to specifically enumerate all the rights to which . . . defendant was entitled”.. , as defendant notes, the court nonetheless failed to explain, let alone refer to, any of the constitutional trial-related rights that he would forfeit by pleading guilty … . Rather, at the plea proceeding, the court focused almost exclusively on defendant’s waiver of an intoxication defense, as well as any other potential defenses, and whether defendant understood the benefits and risks of going forward with a trial. The record also fails to disclose that the court “obtain[ed] any assurance that defendant had discussed with counsel the trial-related rights that are automatically forfeited by pleading guilty or the constitutional implications of a guilty plea” … . People v Simpson, 2021 NY Slip Op 04579, Third Dept 7-28-21

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN MAKING MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of defendants’ default in mortgage payments was based upon business records which were not produced:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the defendants’ default in payment by submitting the affidavit of Haley Pope, the Foreclosure Manager for its loan servicer. Pope did not specifically state that she had personal knowledge of the defendants’ default in payment. To the extent Pope relied on her review of business records, she did not identify which records she relied on to assert a default in payment, or attach any business records to her affidavit to substantiate the alleged default in payment. Thus, the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden by relying on Pope’s conclusory assertion that the defendants defaulted in payment, which was not supported by a factual basis … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v McLaughlin, 2021 NY Slip Op 04576, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS IN DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, SHE STILL CAN CONTEST THE AMOUNT OWED; THE REFEREE’S REPORT HERE WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED IN PART ON UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should have been rejected because it was based in part on business records which were not produced. Although defendant was in default, she still could contest the amount owed:

The fact that the defendant defaulted in appearing did not mean that she was precluded from contesting the amount owed … . The Supreme Court should not have confirmed the referee’s report because the referee’s recommendation that the plaintiff be awarded tax and hazard insurance disbursements was premised upon unproduced business records … . Consequently, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … . Accordingly, we reject the referee’s report and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new report computing the amount due to the plaintiff, followed by further proceedings in accordance with CPLR 4403 and the entry of an appropriate amended judgment thereafter. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Campbell, 2021 NY Slip Op 04574, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

/ ,

IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IMPUTING TOO MUCH INCOME TO AND AWARDING TOO LITTLE MAINTENANCE TO PLAINTIFF WIFE; IN ADDITION DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED 50% OF THE VALUE OF PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS AND THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED A POSTTRIAL VALUATION OF THE BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined the imputation of income to plaintiff, the amount of maintenance awarded to plaintiff were not supported by the evidence. In addition the award of 50% of plaintiff’s business to defendant and the ordering of a posttrial valuation of the business were deemed improper:

… [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by imputing an annual income of $80,000 to the plaintiff when calculating her maintenance award. During this 28-year marriage, notwithstanding her college degree and various certifications, the plaintiff, who was 55 years old at the time of trial, had been a stay at home mother and homemaker for almost 10 years and had never earned more than $19 per hour from employment upon returning to work outside the home, while the defendant was the primary wage earner for the family and earned a substantial income. Moreover, the plaintiff’s business was not a financial success. …

“In cases such as this one, commenced prior to January 23, 2016 …, factors to be considered are, among others, the standard of living of the parties, the income and property of the parties, the distribution of property, the duration of the marriage, the health of the parties, the present and future earning capacity of the parties, the ability of the party seeking maintenance to become self-supporting, the reduced or lost earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance, and the presence of children of the marriage in the respective homes of the parties” … . Weiss v Nelson, 2021 NY Slip Op 04573, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S CONTRACT BUT DID NOT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS RELATIONS OR ENGAGE IN UNFAIR COMPETITION; THE ELEMENTS OF THE THREE CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant was properly found to have tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s contract but should not have been found to have tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s business relations or to have engaged in unfair competition. The elements of each cause of action are clearly explained in the decision. With respect to tortious interference with business relations, the court wrote:

“While a cause of action for interference with prospective contract or business relationship is closely akin to one for tortious interference with contract, the former requires proof of more culpable conduct on the part of defendant” … . “This standard is met where the interference with prospective business relations was accomplished by wrongful means or where the offending party acted for the sole purpose of harming the other party” … . “Wrongful means” has been defined to include “physical violence, fraud or misrepresentation, civil suits and criminal prosecutions, and some degrees of economic pressure” … . “[A]s a general rule, the defendant’s conduct must amount to a crime or an independent tort. Conduct that is not criminal or tortious will generally be ‘lawful’ and thus insufficiently ‘culpable’ to create liability for interference with prospective contracts or other nonbinding economic relations” … . In addition, conduct which is motivated by economic self-interest cannot be characterized as solely malicious … . Stuart’s, LLC v Edelman, 2021 NY Slip Op 04569, Second Dept 7-29-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER OCCURRED DURING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly dismissed because plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance at the time of his fall from a ladder:

“Generally, courts have held that work constitutes routine maintenance where the work involves ‘replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear'”  … .

… [T]he defendants established … that the replacement of the condenser fan motor, which, according to the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff’s employer, weighed approximately 1½ pounds and was the kind of part that required replacement “all the time,” constituted routine maintenance and not repairing, or any of the other enumerated activities under Labor Law § 240(1) … . “The work here involved replacing [a] component[ ] that require[s] replacement in the course of normal wear and tear” … . Stockton v H&E Biffer Enters. No. 2, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04568, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

/ ,

IN THIS RESENTENCING PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT SINCE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED IN 1998-99 AND SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AN UPDATED PRESENTENCE REPORT WHICH INCLUDED AN INTERVIEW WITH DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this resentencing proceeding, determined the sentencing judge could consider defendant’s conduct after the original sentence was imposed and should have ordered an updated presentence report, including an interview with the defendant. Defendant had been sentenced in 1998 and 1999 to 125 years of imprisonment. In 2019 defendant moved to set aside his sentence on the ground that is was vindictive and the People consented to setting the sentence aside:

The Supreme Court erred in determining that it had no discretion to consider the defendant’s conduct after the original sentence was imposed. In People v Kuey (83 NY2d 278, 282), the Court of Appeals noted that when a defendant comes before the court for resentencing, “the proper focus of the inquiry is on the defendant’s record prior to the commission of the crime.” However, the Court of Appeals did not purport to limit the sentencing court’s discretion. Indeed, in Kuey, the Court of Appeals further noted that the defendant was “afforded the opportunity to supply information about his subsequent conduct,” and that the court had discretion to order an updated presentence report regarding the defendant’s subsequent conduct, if it determined that such was necessary … .

Critically, unlike the resentencing proceeding in Kuey, the resentencing proceeding here was held because the original sentence was claimed to be vindictive, which is not merely a technical defect in the original sentence … , but implicates the original sentencing court’s failure to have observed sentencing principles before imposing sentence. Given the context under which the resentence was directed, the resentencing court must exercise discretion and give due consideration “to, among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the [resentencing] court and the purpose of a penal sanction, i.e., societal protection, rehabilitation and deterrence” … . People v Garcia, 2021 NY Slip Op 04558, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

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