You are here: / IT WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR THE FORECLOSURE...

Search Results

/ , ,

IT WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR THE FORECLOSURE SALE DUE TO THE COVID PANDEMIC; HOWEVER IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY THE MOTION TO TOLL THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the deadline for the foreclosure sale mandated by RPAPL 1351 was properly extended due to the COVID pandemic, but the accumulation of interest during the delay should have been tolled:

… Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 to extend the time to conduct the foreclosure sale to the extent of extending the time to conduct the sale to 90 days from the date of the order … . The plaintiff demonstrated that “the delay [wa]s largely attributable to, among other things, . . . the COVID-19 pandemic” … . Further, the defendant failed to establish that the delay caused him any prejudice … .

“A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court” … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … . Thus, “[i]n an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court’s discretion. The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party” … . “Further, a tolling and cancellation of interest may also be warranted where there is an unexplained delay in prosecution of a mortgage foreclosure action” … . “[A] plaintiff should not benefit financially, in the form of accrued interest, from an unexplained delay in the prosecution of a mortgage foreclosure action” … .

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s cross-motion to toll the accrual of interest on the subject mortgage loan … . The plaintiff asserted that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted its ability to proceed with the sale of the property … . However, the pandemic-related stays on foreclosure sales did not go into effect until after the expiration of the 90-day deadline to conduct the sale of the property … , and the plaintiff failed to adequately explain its failure to conduct the sale within that 90-day period … . Under the circumstances presented, the court should have granted the defendant’s cross-motion to the extent of tolling the accrual of interest on the subject mortgage loan after February 17, 2020 … . M&T Bank v Givens, 2025 NY Slip Op 05677, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: A foreclosure is an equitable proceeding triggering the exercise of discretion by the the judge. Here the extension of the deadline for the foreclosure sale due to the COVID pandemic was a proper exercise of discretion, but the denial of the motion to toll the accrual of interest during the delay was an abuse of discretion.

 

/ , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 RESULTED IN DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT AFTER TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not strictly comply with the provisions of RPAPL 1304, requiring dismissal of the complaint after trial:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. “‘Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action'” … . When this action was commenced in 2015, RPAPL 1304(1) required that the notice sent to borrowers contain the following language: “As of . . . , your home loan is . . . days in default. Under New York State Law, we are required to send you this notice to inform you that you are at risk of losing your home. You can cure this default by making the payment of . . . dollars by . . .” … .

Here, at the nonjury trial, the plaintiff submitted the notice sent to the defendant, which omitted the cure date as required by the statute. Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish its compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Christiana Trust v Larmond, 2025 NY Slip Op 05664, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Here the notice of foreclosure presented as evidence at trial did not comply with RPAPL 1304, requiring dismissal of the complaint.

 

/

PLAINTIFF DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN IDENTIFYING THE PARTY INITIALLY SUED AS “JOHN DOE TRUCKING COMPANY;” COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the complaint as time-barred, determined plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in identifying the party initially sued as “John Doe Trucking Company” prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations:

Pursuant to CPLR 1024, “[a] party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his [or her] name and identity as is known.” “However, a plaintiff cannot rely on CPLR 1024 unless he or she ‘exercise[s] due diligence, prior to the running of the statute of limitations, to identify the defendant by name and, despite such efforts, [is] unable to do so'” … . “Any failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the ‘Jane Doe’s’ [or ‘John Doe’s’] name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party” … . Additionally, the “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” party must “be described in such form as will fairly apprise the party that she [or he] is the intended defendant” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that it made diligent efforts to ascertain Werner’s identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations … . Further, the description in the amended complaint was insufficient to fairly apprise Werner that it was the intended defendant … . Abrego v Tile World Import Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 05661, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Failure to exercise due diligence in identifying a party initially sued as a “John Doe” before the expiration of the statute of limitations will result in dismissal of the complaint.

 

/ , ,

CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED PARENTAL NEGLECT FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE CHILDREN FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL AND DENTAL TREATMENT AND FAILURE TO ENSURE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence supported finding the parents neglected the children by failing to provide medical and dental care and failing to ensure school attendance:

A neglected child is defined, in relevant part, as a child less than 18 years of age “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [their] parent or other person legally responsible for [their] care to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in supplying the child with adequate . . . education . . . , or medical[ or] dental . . . care, though financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). “The statute thus imposes two requirements for a finding of neglect, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence . . . First, there must be proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional or mental impairment to the child . . . Second, any impairment, actual or imminent, must be a consequence of the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care . . . This is an objective test that asks whether a reasonable and prudent parent [would] have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances” … .

… [T]he evidence of respondents’ ” ‘failure to follow through with necessary treatment for [Rocky M.’s] serious medical condition support[s] [a] finding of medical neglect” against them … . …[R]espondents’ failure to take Jemma M. to medical appointments for most of the first year of her life, particularly in light of her prematurity, condition and weight at birth, and subsequent developmental delays, caused impairment of her physical and emotional condition sufficient to support a finding of medical neglect with respect to her … . … [T]he evidence … , including medical records, establishes that respondents were financially able or had other reasonable means to provide adequate medical care … . The evidence further establishes that respondents neglected Cynthia M., Gwen M., Emmitt C. and Rocky M. by failing to provide adequate dental care … . … [P]etitioner presented unrebutted evidence of excessive school absences for Cynthia M., Gwen M., James M., and Emmitt C., which is sufficient to establish respondents’ educational neglect of those children … . Finally, we conclude that the evidence of neglect with respect to the aforementioned children “demonstrates such an impaired level of . . . judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in [respondents’] care,” thus warranting a finding of derivative neglect with respect to Nova M. and Trenton M. Matter of Cynthia M., 2025 NY Slip Op 05621, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: The parents’ failure to provide the children with medical and dental care, and the failure to ensure school attendance warranted neglect and derivative neglect findings with respect to all the children, criteria explained.

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUGHT HER HEEL AND CAUSED HER TO FALL, THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT A MIS-LEVELED CONCRETE SLAB CAUSED THE FALL COULD ALLOW THE JURY TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE WITHOUT RESORT TO SPECULATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been denied. Plaintiff testified “something caught her heel” when she was walking backwards from a gravel driveway to the garage and she fell onto concrete in the garage. Plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall, but the circumstantial evidence indicated her heel caught on the mis-leveled concrete slab:

​… [W]e conclude that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the cause of plaintiff’s fall was speculative … . ” ‘Although [mere] conclusions based upon surmise, conjecture, speculation or assertions are without probative value . . . , a case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence may be established if the plaintiff[ ] show[s] facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant[ ] and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred’ ” … .

Although plaintiff testified that she did not know what caught her heel and caused the fall, she also stated that she fell in the immediate vicinity of the entry to the garage from the gravel driveway and landed inside the garage. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party … , we conclude that the testimony and the allegations in the bill of particulars regarding the mis-leveled concrete slab “render[ed] any other potential cause of her fall ‘sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence’ ” … . Withers v Roblee, 2025 NY Slip Op 05620, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff could not say precisely what “caught her heel” and caused her to fall, but the circumstantial evidence was such that a jury could determine the cause without resort to speculation. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.

 

/ , ,

THE DEFENDANT SAID “HE DIDN’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT …” AND THE POLICE STOPPED QUESTIONING HIM; AN HOUR AN A HALF LATER THE POLICE RESUMED QUESTIONING WITHOUT RE-READING THE MIRANDA RIGHTS; THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the statements made by defendant after he invoked his right to remain silent should have suppressed. The questioning stopped after defendant said “he didn’t want to talk about that …”. The questioning resumed an hour and a half later without a re-reading of defendant’s Miranda rights:

… [A]fter the police told defendant that they considered him a suspect in the underlying shooting and asked him “for his side of the story,” defendant continually stated that “he didn’t want to talk about that and [that] he’d rather take his chances.” We conclude that defendant thereby unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent … inasmuch as “[n]o reasonable police officer could have interpreted that statement as anything other than a desire not to talk to the police” … . Indeed, the actions of the police in response to defendant’s statement demonstrated that they understood his statement to be an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent—i.e., they promptly ceased their questioning of defendant and left the interrogation room for a prolonged period of time … . Defendant’s responses to a police officer when the officer resumed the interrogation—which occurred about an hour and a half after the prior questioning ceased—did not negate defendant’s prior unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent because the police officer failed to reread the Miranda warnings to defendant before resuming the interrogation and therefore failed to scrupulously honor his right to remain silent … . People v Surles, 2025 NY Slip Op 05603, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Here the police stopped questioning defendant when he said “he didn’t want to talk about that …”. An hour and half later the police resumed questioning without re-reading the Miranda rights. Those statement should have been suppressed.

 

/ , , , ,

THE JUDGE’S ASSESSING SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTION LAW FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; DETERMINATION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the SORA risk level determination, held that the judge violated defendant’s right to due process of law by assessing points that were not requested by the People, and violated the Correction Law requirements for imposing an upward departure:

Although defendant failed to object to the assessment of points … when the court rendered its oral decision, we “review defendant’s contention in the interest of justice in light of the substantial infringement upon [her] due process and statutory rights” … .

… [T]he court failed to comply with the requirement of Correction Law § 168-n (3) that it set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which it based its decision to grant the People’s request for an upward departure … . In its decision, the court merely concluded, under the first part of the relevant three-part analysis, that the People had identified “aggravating . . . circumstances . . . of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . At no time in its decision did the court render a determination on the other two parts of the relevant analysis. Rather, after identifying the aggravating circumstances, the court conclusorily granted the People’s application for an upward departure, without ever “weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an over- or under-assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . People v Ridley, 2025 NY Slip Op 05599, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: If a judge assesses SORA risk-level points not requested by the People, the defendant’s due process rights are violated.

Practice Point: In granting an upward departure in a SORA risk-level-assessment proceeding, the judge must make the findings required by the Correction Law.

 

/ ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE IN BRINGING A POLICE OFFICER TO COURT TO TESTIFY AT A PRETRIAL HEARING; THE 33-DAY DELAY WAS UNREASONABLE AND CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE; DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s speedy trial motion should have been granted and the indictment was dismissed. A 33-day delay in having a police officer come to court to testify at a pretrial hearing was deemed unreasonable and chargeable to the People:

The People announced readiness in July 2021 and, subsequently, a combined Huntley and Mapp hearing was held on December 8, 2021. After two officers from the Rochester Police Department testified at that hearing, the prosecutor stated that a third officer was “currently not allowed to come to court due to an ongoing investigation by the Attorney General’s Office.” The prosecutor said that he was unsure of “who” was telling the officer “not to come to court.” The court thus adjourned the hearing and, ultimately, the officer testified on January 10, 2022, i.e., 33 days later.

… The People failed to establish that they exercised due diligence, i.e. ” ‘credible, vigorous activity’ to make the witness available” … . People v Beason, 2025 NY Slip Op 05598, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Here a 33-day unexplained delay in bringing a police officer to court to testify at a pretrial hearing was deemed unreasonable and chargeable to the People.

 

/ , , , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER IN THE 70’S, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHICH SUPPORTED THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, TRAINING AND HIRING AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the negligent supervision, negligent training, and negligent hiring and retention causes of action against the school district, based on allegations of sexual abuse of plaintiff by a music teacher in the 70’s, should not have been dismissed. The evidence presented by the plaintiff and defendants included the observed behavior of the music teacher by another teacher, the dismissal of the music teacher from other schools, the conflicting information about arrests in the teacher’s employment applications, the suspicions of other teachers and the failure to report those suspicions:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit wherein he averred that on two occasions the music teacher entered the boys’ locker room while plaintiff and his classmates were changing and that on each occasion the gym teacher instructed the music teacher to leave. Although the gym teacher denied observing the music teacher in the boys’ locker room during his deposition, plaintiff submitted an affidavit that the gym teacher executed in an unrelated case wherein he averred that he had “heard rumors from many students” that the music teacher had a sexual interest in the male students at the school and that he was “suspicious that [the music teacher] may have had inappropriate relationships with students.” The affidavit reflects that the gym teacher was “vigilant” and “kept an eye on” the music teacher—meeting weekly with another coach to “see if the other had witnessed any inappropriate behavior” by the music teacher—but nonetheless permitted the music teacher to transport students to and from games and swim meets.

* * * [[P]laintiff submitted the music teacher’s testimony, wherein he testified that he had “always” had students visit him at his home and that other teachers were aware that students would visit him at his home, where the abuse of plaintiff is, in part, alleged to have occurred … . …

Plaintiff also submitted an expert affidavit asserting that defendants failed to appropriately train and supervise other teachers and staff to report their knowledge of inappropriate behavior. * * *

… [D]efendants submitted the music teacher’s employment applications, wherein he submitted contradictory responses about whether he had been arrested; a reference from the principal of a junior high school where the music teacher had taught, who stated that the music teacher had been “dismissed or denied tenure” and “had a tendency to more or less pal with his seventh grade male students”; and a reference completed by a school counselor employed by a different district, who stated that the music teacher had been “dismissed or denied tenure” and that she would not employ him as a teacher in her school system. Harper v Buffalo City Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 05595, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the nature of the proof which will raise questions of fact in a Child Victims Act case against a school district alleging negligent supervision, training, hiring and retention.

 

/ ,

THE INSTALLATION OF MOTION-ACTIVATED SECURITY LIGHTS WHICH SHINE INTO A NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY CAN CONSTITUTE A PRIVATE NUISANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the nuisance cause of action, based upon defendants’ installation of flood lights, should not have been dismissed:

“To establish a claim of private nuisance, a plaintiff must show: ‘an interference (1) substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with [the plaintiff’s] property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failure to act’ ” … . The interference “must not be fanciful, slight or theoretical, but certain and substantial, and must interfere with the physical comfort of the ordinarily reasonable person” … .

… [T]he amended complaint alleged that a nuisance arose from, among other things, flood lights in defendants’ backyard that shined light onto plaintiff’s property at night. According to plaintiff, the lights constituted a “substantial, intentional and unreasonable interference” with his property rights. In support of that part of their motion seeking summary judgment, defendants acknowledged that they installed motion-activated security lights in their backyard but contended in a conclusory fashion that the lights do not “amount to nuisance to a reasonable person.” Defendants did not identify where on their property the lights are stationed, nor did they dispute that they shined light onto plaintiff’s property. Thus, defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that the lights did not constitute a nuisance. Marrano v Dusza, 2025 NY Slip Op 05592, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Lights which shine into a neighbor’s property can constitute a private nuisance.

 

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