You are here: / THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Mahilet Ayalew, a vice president of loan documentation of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the plaintiff’s servicer. Ayalew stated in the affidavit that 90-day notices were sent to the defendant on February 1, 2013, by regular and certified mail “in full compliance” with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff additionally submitted copies of 90-day notices and indicia of mailing by certified mail, but not first-class mail. Ayalew’s affidavit was insufficient to establish that the notices were actually mailed since Ayalew did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the mailing or that she was familiar with the servicer’s standard office mailing practices and procedures … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Cardona, 2021 NY Slip Op 02138, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

/ ,

THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT UPON FILING A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING; THE INSTANT ACTION IS THEREFORE TIMELY BUT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS DUE DURING THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE INSTANT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the prior foreclosure action which was dismissed for lack of standing did not accelerate the debt. Therefore the instant action is timely but only as to the installment payments due during the six years before the action was brought:

The instant action is the third mortgage foreclosure action commenced with respect to this loan. The first mortgage foreclosure action was commenced in or about July 2010, and was dismissed in December 2012, for lack of standing. A second mortgage foreclosure action was commenced on or about January 23, 2015, and was dismissed due to a mistake in the caption of the action. The instant action was thereafter commenced in October 2016 … . …

A mortgage foreclosure action is governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[4]). Where a mortgage is payable in installments, separate causes of action accrue for each installment that is not paid, and the statute of limitations begins to run on the date each installment becomes due … . Once a mortgage debt is accelerated, however, the statute of limitations begins to run on the entire debt … .

The first action to foreclose the mortgage, which purportedly accelerated the mortgage debt, was initiated in or about July 2010. However, that action was dismissed for lack of standing, and therefore, the alleged acceleration was a nullity … . Accordingly, the instant action is timely, but only with respect to those installments that accrued within six years of the date of commencement of the instant action … . Therefore, the plaintiff’s recovery may not include any installments that became due more than six years prior to the commencement of the action, and the amount due must be recalculated to reflect that fact. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Limtcher, 2021 NY Slip Op 02134,  Second Dept 4-7-21

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK, AT TRIAL, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the plaintiff’s verdict in this foreclosure action, determined the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate (at trial) that it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

“‘In reviewing a determination . . . after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses'” … . At the nonjury trial, the plaintiff relied upon the testimony of its sole witness, who testified as to the standard office mailing procedure of the plaintiff’s prior and present loan servicer, but did not and could not attest to the practices and procedures of Walz Group, a third-party entity that was hired to undertake the requisite service of the notices on the defendants in accordance with the requirements of the mortgage agreement and RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff’s witness expressly testified that she did not have familiarity with Walz Group’s mailing practices “outside of their communications with” the loan servicer. In addition, the witness attested that she never mailed anything through Walz Group, was never employed by Walz Group, and was never trained by Walz Group in their procedures for mailing notices. Further, she testified that she could not say if Walz Group mailed the notices by first-class mail.

Thus, since the plaintiff’s sole witness did not have “knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which sent the notice[s]” … , and the business records that were submitted in evidence failed to show that the requisite first-class mailings of the RPAPL 1304 notices or the notices of default were actually made to the defendants or that the default notices were actually delivered to their “notice address,” the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Bucicchia, 2021 NY Slip Op 02132, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

/ , ,

AFTER THE CITY MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ON THE GROUND IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, THE PLAINTIFFS, YEARS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED, MOVED FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ALLEGE THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND THE CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs in this slip and fall case should not have been allowed to amend the notice of claim to add the allegation that the city created the icy condition in the parking garage. The city had moved for summary judgment because it did not have written notice of the condition. The plaintiffs then moved for leave to amend the notice of claim, years after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The city was entitled to summary judgment:

“‘A plaintiff seeking to recover in tort against a municipality must serve a notice of claim to enable authorities to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merits of the claim'” … . “‘A notice of claim must set forth, inter alia, the nature of the claim, and the time, place, and manner in which the claim arose'” … . “Under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), ‘[a] notice of claim may be amended only to correct good faith and nonprejudicial technical mistakes, omissions, or defects, not to substantively change the nature of the claim or the theory of liability'” … . Here, contrary to the court’s determination, the proposed amendment to the notice of claim was not to correct a technical mistake, defect, or omission within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), but rather, improperly sought “to assert a new theory of affirmative negligence several years after the . . . applicable limitations period” … . Congero v City of Glen Cove, 2021 NY Slip Op 02131, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

/ , , ,

THE COMPLAINT BY THE CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS AGAINST THE CONDOMINIUM MANAGING AGENT STATED DISTINCT CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BOTH BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE LAW FIRM WHICH REPRESENTED THE MANAGING AGENT IN AN UNRELATED MATTER INVOLVING THE CONDOMINIUM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this dispute between the board of managers of Brightwater Condominium and the condominium managing agent, FirstService, determined the complaint stated causes of action for both breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, and the law firm (Woods) which represented FirstService in another matter with only a tangential relationship with Brightwater should not have been disqualified:

Managing agents of a condominium may owe a fiduciary duty to the condominium, depending on the functions they assume … . A fiduciary, in the context of condominium management, “is one who transacts business, or who handles money or property, which is not [its] own or for [its] own benefit, but for the benefit of another person, as to whom [it] stands in a relation implying and necessitating great confidence and trust on the one part and a high degree of good faith on the other part” … . …

Although a cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty which is based on the same facts and seeks identical damages is duplicative of a breach of contract cause of action and should be dismissed on that basis … , here, in addition to breaches of the management agreement, Brightwater alleges specific breaches of trust which are outside the duties set forth in the management agreement, such as misappropriation of funds, and instances of self-dealing, set forth with specificity. …

FirstService did not dispute Brightwater’s showing that no confidential information was obtained from FirstService by the Woods Firm in connection with that prior action. As there is no indication in the record that confidential information was disclosed, there is no basis for disqualification … . Board of Mgrs. of Brightwater Towers Condominium v FirstService Residential N.Y., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02128, Second Dept 4-7-21

 

/ , ,

IN THIS COMPLEX EXCESS INSURANCE CASE, WHICH INCLUDED A REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE LAW-OF-THE-CASE AND RES-JUDICATA DOCTRINES DID NOT DICTATE THE OUTCOME AND THE EXCESS INSURANCE CARRIER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY IN THE UNDERLYING PERSONAL INJURY ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined that RLI, an excess insurance carrier, was not obligated to defend or indemnify in the underlying personal injury action. In the underlying action, plaintiff, an employee of Transel Elevator, was working on an elevator at a hotel and was injured descending stairs at the hotel. The complex relationships among the parties and several insurance carriers cannot be fairly summarized here. What follows in the First Department’s summary of the case. In essence the First Department held that prior rulings did not dictate the outcome here under law-of-the-case or res-judicata principles:

Plaintiff Aspen Specialty Insurance Company commenced this action seeking a declaration that the excess insurance policy issued by RLI Insurance Company, Inc. was next in order of coverage for a personal injury action, in which Aspen and RLI’s common insured, Alphonse Hotel Corporation, was a defendant. The issue in this case is whether RLI, an excess insurer with a follow form policy, is bound by a prior judicial determination of this Court that the primary policy issued by Ironshore Indemnity Inc., which underlies RLI’s excess policy, covers the defendant in the personal injury action, Alphone, as an additional insured. In the prior declaratory judgment action between Aspen and Ironshore, this Court declared that the language in the additional insured endorsement extends coverage broadly to any injury causally linked to the named insured, which was satisfied in this case because the loss involved an employee of the named insured who was injured while performing the named insured’s work under the contract with the additional insured. RLI argues that it is not bound by this Court’s prior determination because it was not part of the prior declaratory judgment action. In the present declaratory judgment action, RLI wishes to relitigate the issue of whether Ironshore’s policy covers Alphonse as an additional insured. RLI relies upon the 2017 Court of Appeals decision in Burlington Ins. Co. v NYC Tr. Auth. (29 NY3d 313 [2017]), which interpreted language in an additional insured endorsement similar to the language here as covering the additionally insured party, vicariously, only for negligent acts of the named insured. It is undisputed in the instant case that the named insured was not in control of the instrumentality of the accident that caused the underlying personal injuries. … RLI is not bound by our prior determination and that it is entitled to a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify in the underlying personal injury action. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co. v RLI Ins. Co., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02092, First Dept 4-6-21

 

/

RESPONDENT CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOIL REQUEST WOULD INTERFERE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR WOULD REVEAL A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FOIL REQUEST WAS PROTECTED BY THE INTER- OR INTRA- AGENCY MATERIALS EXEMPTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that two of the grounds for denying the FOIL request were invalid and the third, the inter-agency or intra-agency materials exemption, could not be assessed absent an in camera review of the documents. The matter was remitted:

Respondent failed to meet its burden of establishing that disclosure of any records responsive to petitioner’s FOIL request would “interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings” … . This exemption “ceases to apply after enforcement investigations and any ensuing judicial proceedings have run their course” … . …

Respondent also failed to establish that disclosure would “identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation” … , “in the absence of any evidence that [any] person received an express or implied promise of confidentiality'” … . Respondent’s assertion that disclosure would reveal nonroutine “criminal investigative techniques or procedures” … is conclusory.

The email messages submitted by petitioner in support of the article 78 petition are covered by the inter-agency or intra-agency materials exemption … because they amount to “opinions, ideas, or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making”… . However, the applicability of this exemption to any other responsive records cannot be determined on this record in the absence of in camera review … . Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Investigation, 2021 NY Slip Op 02108, First Dept 4-6-21

 

/ ,

TWO VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCES OF TWO SUCCESSIVE FORECLOSURE ACTIONS TWICE REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT RENDERING THE THIRD FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court based upon the February, 2021 Court of Appeals ruling, determined two voluntary discontinuances of two successive foreclosure actions twice revoked the acceleration of the debt, rending the third foreclosure action timely:

… [O]n February 18, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in Freedom Mtge. Corp v Engel, — NY3d —, 2021 NY Slip Op 01090 (2021), holding, inter alia, that “where acceleration occurred by virtue of the filing of a complaint in a foreclosure action, the noteholder’s voluntary discontinuance of that action constitutes an affirmative act of revocation of that acceleration as a matter of law, absent an express, contemporaneous statement to the contrary by the noteholder” (Freedom Mtge., at *6). Thus, contrary to defendants’ argument, the September 2013 voluntary discontinuance of the 2009 first foreclosure action did constitute an “affirmative act,” within six years, thereby revoking the prior election to accelerate. A second foreclosure action was commenced in October 2013 and discontinued in September 2017. To the extent there is a question surrounding plaintiff’s reason for discontinuing the second foreclosure action and whether that reason constituted a “contemporaneous statement” that they were not seeking to de-accelerate the debt, it does not change the fact that the third foreclosure action is timely because it was commenced within six years of the date of acceleration, which was October 2013. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Boktor, 2021 NY Slip Op 02124, First Dept 4-6-21

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE; PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE THEORY WAS NOT ASSERTED IN THE ANSWERS; THE MOTION TO DIMSISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUPPORTED ONLY BY INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) defendant security company’s (Kent’s) motion to dismiss the negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1) was untimely because the defendant did not assert a defense based on documentary evidence in its answers; and (2) the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim failed because the affidavit submitted by defendant’s director of operations was not sworn to have been made on his personal knowledge and did not lay a proper foundation for the admissibility of the documents referred to in the affidavit as business records. Plaintiff, Erin, alleged a security guard employed by defendant (Kent) sexually assaulted her at a hotel where Kent provided security services:

… [T]he affidavit of Kent’s director of operations was not sworn to have been made on his own personal knowledge, and therefore was of no probative value as to the issues of fact that he addressed … . Moreover, although “an affidavit from an individual, even if the person has no personal knowledge of the facts, may properly serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, like documentary evidence” … , the affidavit must nevertheless “constitute a proper foundation for the admission of the records”… . Because Kent’s director of operations did not establish that the documents annexed to his affidavit fell within the business records exception to the hearsay rule (CPLR 4518[a]), those documents were inadmissible … .

Contrary to defendant’s argument, plaintiffs do have a well-pled negligent hiring claim cognizable at law. Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to put Kent on notice of their claim that Kent negligently hired, trained, supervised, and retained the guard who, plaintiffs allege, sexually assaulted Erin, and that Kent knew or should have known of the guard’s propensity to commit sexual assault. Moreover, plaintiffs can amplify these allegations in their bill of particulars … . Doe v Intercontinental Hotels Group, PLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02063, First Dept 4-1-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY AN AIR CONDITIONER WHEN TWO OF THE FOUR RODS ATTACHING THE AIR CONDITIONER TO THE CEILING DETACHED AND ONE END OF THE UNIT FELL; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS A FALLING OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether an air conditioner installed by plaintiff’s employer was a falling object which should have been secured in this Labor Law 240 (1) action. the air condition was attached to the concrete ceiling by four rods. Two of the rods came out of the ceiling causing one end of the unit to drop, striking plaintiff:

Plaintiff testified that he was standing on the fourth rung of an A-frame ladder, which he had set up on a solid and clean part of the floor and had been using without incident, directly under an air-conditioning unit, while attempting to follow his foreman’s instructions by connecting a “canvas” device to air-conditioning duct work, when the air-conditioning unit fell onto his head, causing him to fall off the ladder onto the floor. The air-conditioning unit had recently been installed by plaintiff’s employer as part of its work on the project and was not part of the pre-existing building structure as it appeared before the project began. The air-conditioning unit was mounted a few inches below the approximately 12-foot ceiling by four rods. Plaintiff testified that two of those rods detached from the concrete ceiling, causing one end of the unit to drop, while the other end of the unit remained attached to the ceiling by two bent rods.

There is an issue of fact as to whether the air-conditioning unit constituted a falling object that was required to be secured for the purposes of the undertaking … . Erby v 36 LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02065, First Dept 4-1-21

 

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