You are here: / MORTGAGES ISSUED BY NYS FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM NYS MORTGAGE...

Search Results

/ ,

MORTGAGES ISSUED BY NYS FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM NYS MORTGAGE RECORDING TAX (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that mortgages issued by NYS federal credit unions are not exempt from the NYS mortgage recording tax:

This precise question was decided in Hudson Val. Fed. Credit Union v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. (20 NY3d 1, 13), where the Court of Appeals held that, based on principles of statutory interpretation and the legislative history of the Federal Credit Union Act, mortgages issued by New York State federal credit unions are not exempt from the imposition of the New York State mortgage recording tax. This Court is bound by the Court of Appeals’ decision in Hudson Val. Fed. Credit Union, despite conflicting federal intermediate court decisions which post-date it (see People v Jackson, 46 AD3d 1110). O’Donnell & Sons, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2021 NY Slip Op 02535, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff, a swimming official, slipped on water on a pool deck at an indoor swimming facility. The water did not come from the pool, but rather was condensation from a dehumidification system:

… [T]he defendant cannot obtain summary judgment by relying on the cases in which courts have dismissed personal injury claims arising out of slipping on water around pools based on the reasoning that such water was necessarily incidental to the use of the area … . …

[Re: assumption of the risk:] … [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” … .

Here, the hazardous condition of an indoor pool deck wet from condensation that had formed and dripped was not open and obvious and created a risk beyond that inherent in the sport of swimming in an indoor swimming facility … .. Further, “the doctrine of assumption of risk does not exculpate a landowner from liability for ordinary negligence in maintaining a premises” … . O’Brien v Asphalt Green, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02534, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

/ ,

THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT DID NOT STOP FOR A RED LIGHT AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR AS PLAINTIFF WAS PASSING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION; FAILING TO STOP FOR A RED LIGHT VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND CONSTITUTES NEGLIGENCE PER SE; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence that defendant Glennon ran a red light and struck plaintiff’s car as plaintiff was passing through the intersection warranted summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor. Running a red light is a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which constitutes negligence per se:

“[A] violation of a standard of care imposed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … . Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(d)(1), a driver when “facing a steady circular red signal, . . . shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or in the event there is no crosswalk, at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of the approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection.” …

[Steedman, a witness, testified the] first two vehicles passed through the intersection without incident, but then the plaintiff, who was driving the third vehicle, was struck by Glennon’s vehicle. Steedman … testified that he observed Glennon looking down into her lap at the time of the accident. Thus, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that Glennon entered the subject intersection against a red light, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111(d)(1) … . Callahan v Glennon, 2021 NY Slip Op 02509, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

/ , ,

INFECTING A VICTIM WITH HIV CONSTITUTES “PHYSICAL INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF RISK FACTOR 1 RE: THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT; HOWEVER THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT IN FACT INFECTED THE VICTIM WITH HIV WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a defendant’s infecting a victim with HIV constitutes “physical injury” within the meaning of risk factor 1 re: the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). However the evidence that the victim was in fact infected with HIV by the defendant was not clear and convincing and the related 15 points should not have been assessed:

… [W]e conclude that infection with HIV constitutes a physical injury. …

A defendant’s statements as to his or her medical condition—unsupported by any records or evidence from a medical or health professional—have been rejected … , and there is no reason why the same rule should not apply to the People, who are held to a higher standard of proof. Points may be assessed at a SORA hearing based upon physical injury to the victim, based on “clear and convincing evidence in the record, including medical evaluations” … . However, here, no medical evaluations of the victim were in evidence, and the alleged impairment would not be apparent to a layperson. People v Alay, 2021 NY Slip Op 02551, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

/ , ,

APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS DEPORTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department dismissed defendant’s appeal because he has been deported. The appeal can be reinstated if defendant returns to the court’s jurisdiction:

In People v Harrison (27 NY3d 281), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its ruling that an intermediate appellate court retains its discretion to dismiss a pending permissive appeal due to a defendant’s involuntary deportation. Here, if this Court were to reverse the order appealed from, the defendant would be required to attend and participate in further proceedings in the Supreme Court, which he can no longer do. Accordingly, we grant the People’s motion and dismiss the appeal, without prejudice to a motion to reinstate the appeal should the defendant return to this Court’s jurisdiction … . People v Lopez, 2021 NY Slip Op 02546, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

/

SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR AN ON-THE-RECORD DETERMINATION WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; MANDATORY SURCHARGES AND FEES WAIVED WITH PEOPLE’S CONSENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and the imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees, held Supreme Court failed to determine on the record whether defendant was eligible for youthful offender status:

CPL 720.20(1) requires “that there be a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forego it as part of a plea bargain” … . The Supreme Court was required to determine on the record, with respect to the conviction of attempted assault in the first degree, which constituted an armed felony … , whether the defendant was an eligible youth by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10(3) and, if so, whether he should be afforded youthful offender status … . …

The defendant was convicted before the enactment of CPL 420.35(2-a), which permits the waiver of surcharges and fees for persons who, like the defendant, were less than 21 years old at the time of the subject crime. However, based on the People’s consent, and pursuant to the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, we waive the surcharge and fees imposed on the defendant at sentencing … . People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 02544, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE; PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE FAILED TO INQUIRE FURTHER AT THE TIME OF THE ALLOCUTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the plea allocution negated the intent-to-sell element of criminal possession of a controlled substance. Preservation of the error for appeal was not required because the judge did not make a sufficient inquiry at the time of the allocution:

As charged here, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree requires “knowingly and unlawfully” possessing “a narcotic drug with intent to sell it” (Penal Law § 220.16[1]). The defendant denied during his plea allocution that he intended to sell the drugs he possessed. This is “that rare case . . . where the defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” … . …

“[W]here a defendant’s factual recitation negates an essential element of the crime pleaded to, the court may not accept the plea without making further inquiry to ensure that defendant understands the nature of the charge and that the plea is intelligently entered” … . When a defendant makes remarks during the plea allocution that cast significant doubt on his guilt concerning an element of the crime, the court has a duty to conduct further inquiry to ensure that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily made … . Where, as here, the court fails in its duty to inquire further, a defendant may raise a claim regarding the validity of the plea even without having moved to withdraw the plea … . People v Gause, 2021 NY Slip Op 02543, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT CONDUCT A HEARING OR FOLLOW THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT FORMULA FOR CHILD SUPPORT CALCULATIONS; IN ADDITION THE COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE STRONG PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST RESTITUTION OR RECOUPMENT OF CHIILD SUPPORT ALREADY PAID; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court did not conduct a hearing, did not follow the child support formula of the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) and did not consider the public policy against recoupment or restitution of child support already paid. The matter was remitted for a hearing and a new determination:

… [T]he Supreme Court did not calculate the basic child support obligation for the children, which is done by (1) determining the combined parental income and (2) multiplying the amount of combined parental income up to the statutory cap by the appropriate child support percentage (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][c]). The court did not determine the combined parental income or identify the applicable statutory cap. It further failed to determine each parent’s pro rata share of the basic child support obligation based on his or her income in proportion to the combined parental income … . Rather, the court incorrectly determined the amount of child support owed to the custodial parent based solely on the noncustodial parent’s income multiplied by the appropriate child support percentage, which the court determined to be 25% of the plaintiff’s income. However, the appropriate basic child support figure for the parties’ two children was 25% of the combined parental income, as prorated between the parties in accordance with the statute (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][b][3][ii]). … [T]here is no indication that the court considered “[t]he financial resources of the custodial and non-custodial parent” or whether “the gross income of one parent is substantially less than the other parent’s gross income” … . Park v Park, 2021 NY Slip Op 02536, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

/ , ,

THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE APPLIES TO THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SUCH THAT EACH BREACH WAS AN ACTIONABLE EVENT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT BREACHES WHEN THE FIRST BREACH OCCURRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the continuing wrong doctrine applied to this breach of contract action such that each breach was actionable and, therefore, the statute of limitations for all subsequent breaches was not triggered by the first breach. The subjects of the contracts were commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS). The complaint alleged defendant CWCI breached a collateral management agreement (CMA):

Generally speaking, a claim accrues for statute of limitations purposes when “all of the factual circumstances necessary to establish a right of action have occurred, so that the plaintiff would be entitled to relief” … . However, the mere fact that a claim has accrued and the time to bring an action on it has commenced to run does not mean that a new claim, with a new limitations period, may not arise out of a new set of facts that forms part of a series with the original wrong. [Plaintiff] maintains that the allegations against CWCI comprise such a series of individual wrongs. Thus, it relies on cases such as Bulova Watch Co. v Celotex Corp. (46 NY2d 606 [1979]). There, a new claim, with a new limitations period, was held to have accrued each time the plaintiff, the obligee under a bond that guaranteed that the defendant roofer would make repairs necessary to ensure the watertightness of the plaintiff’s roof over the 20-year life of the bond, asked the defendant, to no avail, to repair a leak. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s failure to commence suit within the limitations period based on the initial leak did not bar the action. * * *

We find that the continuing wrong doctrine does apply to this case. CWCapital Cobalt VR Ltd. v CWCapital Invs. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02487, First Dept 4-27-21

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF WAS RAPED IN DEFENDANTS’ BAR/RESTAURANT AND RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SECURITY AND THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s third-party-assault-negligence action alleging inadequate security at defendant bar/restaurant should not have been dismissed. The building was owned by Harvard Agency and leased to Turnmill. Plaintiff was raped in a basement restroom. Plaintiff raised questions of fact by evidence a rape had occurred at a nearby bar owned by the same family, the bar was in a high crime area, and there were no security cameras in the basement:

Our courts have long held that “‘New York landowners owe people on their property a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to maintain their property in a safe condition'” … . “Although landlords . . . have a common-law duty to minimize foreseeable dangers on their property, including the criminal acts of third parties, they are not the insurers of a visitor’s safety … . …

… [P]laintiff raised an issue of fact by pointing to evidence that Harvard was aware of another assault at a bar owned by the same family and located only a few blocks from Turnmill ( … [… ‘[t]here is no requirement . . . that the past experience relied on to establish foreseeability be of criminal activity at the exact location where plaintiff was harmed or that it be of the same type of criminal conduct to which plaintiff was subjected”]).

… [P]laintiff submitted a detailed expert affidavit indicating that the bar/restaurant was in a high crime area, and that the security employed was inadequate and a deviation from reasonable security standards … . Jane Doe v Turnmill LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02495, First Dept 4-27-21

 

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