You are here: / SETTLEMENT CONFESSIONS OF JUDGMENT WERE VALID AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN...

Search Results

/ , ,

SETTLEMENT CONFESSIONS OF JUDGMENT WERE VALID AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the settlement confessions of judgment were valid and should not have been vacated. The Second Department noted that vacating a judgment entered by filing a confession of judgment requires bringing a plenary action, which the defendants did not do. But, because Supreme Court reached the merits, the Second Department reversed on the merits:

“Generally, a person seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon the filing of an affidavit of confession of judgment must commence a separate plenary action for that relief”… . Here, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in its order, the grounds for vacatur relied upon by the defendants do not fall within an exception to the general rule. Accordingly, the court should have denied the defendants’ motion for failure to commence a plenary action … . However, the court did address the merits of the defendants’ motion, and in the interest of judicial economy, we also consider the merits.

“Construction of an unambiguous contract is a matter of law, and the intention of the parties may be gathered from the four corners of the instrument and should be enforced according to its terms” … . Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, there is no language in the merchant agreements limiting the plaintiff’s authority to file the settlement confessions of judgment. Moreover, the settlement agreement and settlement confessions of judgment clearly and unambiguously permitted the plaintiff to file the settlement confessions of judgment in the event the defendants breached the terms of the settlement agreement. Ace Funding Source, LLC v Myka Cellars, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00538, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

/ , , ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PLAINTIFF MUST ARBITRATE HIS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS; AFTER THE UNION REFUSED TO ARBITRATE THE CLAIMS PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THE INSTANT HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT WAS STAYED PENDING ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Christopher, determined plaintiff’s racial discrimination claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the controlling collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The union had declined to pursue the arbitration of the discrimination claims and plaintiff then commenced the instant action pursuant to the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law. The opinion is to detailed to fairly summarize here. The plaintiff’s complaint was stayed pending arbitration:

“[A]rbitration must be preferred unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute” … . An agreement to arbitrate must be “clear, explicit and unequivocal” … . “Arbitration is a matter of contract, and arbitration clauses, which are subject to ordinary principles of contract interpretation, must be enforced according to their terms” … . * * *

… [I]n order for the plaintiff to be required to arbitrate his employment discrimination claims, the CBA must “clearly and unmistakably” waive the plaintiff’s right to proceed in a judicial forum … . Here, the mandatory arbitration clause “clearly and unmistakably” waives the plaintiff’s right to proceed in a judicial forum. It explicitly references the employment discrimination statutes that the plaintiff has alleged were violated, and states that “[a]ll such claims shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure . . . as the sole and exclusive remedy for violations.” * * *

The Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint was improper. “An agreement to arbitrate is not a defense to an action,” and “[t]hus, it may not be the basis for a motion to dismiss” … . However, upon granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503(a), the court should have stayed the action …, the order granting a motion to compel “shall operate to stay a pending . . . action.” Wilson v PBM, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00593, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

/ , ,

ONLY THE HUSBAND TOOK OUT A MORTGAGE AND DEFENDANTS DENIED THE ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THE WIFE’S INTEREST WAS SUBJECT TO AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE COURT NOTED THAT “NEITHER ADMITTED NOR DENIED” IN AN ANSWER TO A COMPLAINT IS DEEMED AN ADMISSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate its foreclosure action could affect the wife’s (Gloria’s) interest in the property based on the husband’s (David’s) mortgage. It was not necessary for defendants to claim that Gloria’s interest was not subject to an equitable mortgage as an affirmative defense. [Although not related to the equitable mortgage issue, the Second Department noted that “Neither Admitted nor Denied” in an answer to an allegation in a complaint should be deemed to admit the allegation (see CPLR 3018[a] …)]:

… [W]e disagree with the plaintiff’s contention that the defendants, by not pleading it as an affirmative defense, waived their defense to the cause of action relating to the alleged equitable mortgage on Gloria Saff’s interest in the subject property. “CPLR 3018, which governs responsive pleadings, draws a distinction between denials and affirmative defenses” … . “Denials generally relate to allegations setting forth the essential elements that must be proved in order to sustain the particular cause of action” and “[t]hus a mere denial of one or more elements of the cause of action will suffice to place them in issue” … . A defendant, however, must plead, as an affirmative defense, “all matters which, if not pleaded, would be likely to take the adverse party by surprise or would raise issues of fact not appearing on the face of a prior pleading” … . Here, the defendants, in their answer, denied the allegations in the complaint relating to the existence of an equitable mortgage on Gloria Saff’s interest in the subject property. As the denials of an equitable mortgage were in response to allegations in the complaint, they would not take the plaintiff by surprise. * * *

Where spouses own property as tenants by the entirety, a conveyance by one spouse, to which the other has not consented, cannot bind the entire fee … . The mortgage executed by David Saff did not encumber Gloria Saff’s interest in the subject property, and the plaintiff failed to submit evidence demonstrating that it held an equitable mortgage on Gloria Saff’s interest in the subject property. Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the causes of action to foreclose the mortgage and for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has an equitable mortgage against the interest of Gloria Saff in the subject property. U.S. Bank N.A. v Saff, 2021 NY Slip Op 00590, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

/ , ,

THE ESTATE OF THE HUSBAND WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE PROPERTY PASSED TO THE WIFE UPON THE HUSBAND’S DEATH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the husband’s (Thomas’s) estate was not a necessary party in this foreclosure action because the property passed to the decedent’s wife (Judy) upon Thomas’s death:

… [T]he plaintiff’s submission of the deed and Thomas’s death certificate established prima facie that Thomas and Judy had held the subject property as a married couple, and that they remained married at the time of his death. Therefore, Thomas’s death “result[ed] in the defeasance of the deceased spouse’s coextensive interest in the property” … , and the surviving spouse automatically inherited his ownership interest in the property. Moreover, the plaintiff explicitly provided that it would not seek a deficiency judgment against Thomas’s estate … . Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff established that Thomas’s estate was not a necessary party to foreclosure and the plaintiff was entitled to discontinue the action against Thomas, remove his name from the caption, and to vacate the stay which arose upon Thomas’s death … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Auteri, 2021 NY Slip Op 00588, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

/ , ,

HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATIONS IN THE HAMPTONS DEMONSTRATED OWNERSHIP OF THE BEACH TO THE HIGH WATER MARK; THE TOWNS THEREFORE COULD NOT ISSUE PERMITS ALLOWING VEHICLES ON THE BEACH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL Article 15,, determined the homeowners’ associations demonstrated ownership of about 4000 feet of beach in the Hamptons on Long Island. Therefore the towns could not allow vehicles to park on the beach:

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating, inter alia, the boundaries of the subject property with “common certainty” (see RPAPL 1515[2] … ). Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we find that Seaview, Dunes, Tides, and Whalers established their title claims by a preponderance of the evidence, and that Ocean established its title claim by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to the westernmost portion of its property. At trial, the plaintiffs produced a land title expert who testified to the homeowners associations’ chains of title to their respective properties. Specifically, that expert testified, based on documentary evidence, that Seaview, Dunes, Tides, and Whalers owned fee simple title to their respective properties, extending to the mean high-water mark of the Atlantic Ocean. The expert also testified, in relevant part, that Ocean owned fee simple title extending to the mean high-water mark of the Atlantic Ocean, as to the westernmost 400 linear feet of its property. The plaintiffs produced all of the deeds in those respective chains of title, beginning with the Benson Deed, which is common to all of the homeowners associations’ chains of title. Based on the foregoing evidence, the homeowners associations established, to the extent previously indicated, that they owned title in fee simple absolute to the disputed portion of their respective properties (see RPAPL 1515[2] … ). Seaview at Amagansett, Ltd. v Trustees of Freeholders & Commonalty of Town of E. Hampton, 2021 NY Slip Op 00584, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT AND HIS SON WERE REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY; DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY PLED GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD HIS SON WOULD DO JAIL TIME IF DEFENDANT DID NOT ENTER THE PLEA; BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. Defendant was called to the scene of his son’s (Nicholas’s) arrest for DWI. Defendant was charged with assaulting one of the officer’s at the scene. Both defendant and his son were represented by attorney Ozman. Although defendant maintained he did not assault the officer, but rather was assaulted by the officer as he was frantically trying to find his son, defendant allegedly agreed to plead guilty to attempted assault in order to ensure a good plea deal for his son. Because defendant maintained his innocence in his interview with probation, however, the judge did not abide by the plea agreement and sentenced defendant to incarceration. Prior to sentencing, defendant had hired a new attorney and moved to withdraw his plea:

… [T]he record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant’s plea of guilty was motivated, at least in part, by coercive circumstances. The defendant averred, inter alia, that Ozman urged him to plead guilty despite his protestations of innocence because it was “very likely” that Nicholas would otherwise “face ‘jail time.'” The record also reflects that the favorable terms of Nicholas’ plea offer were conditioned upon the defendant entering a plea of guilty as part of the same plea agreement … . Moreover, the defendant demonstrated a significant possibility of a conflict of interest arising from Ozman’s joint representation of the defendant and Nicholas. The defendant’s maintenance of his innocence was at odds with Ozman obtaining a favorable plea offer for Nicholas as part of the “package deal,” which also required the defendant to enter a plea of guilty … . Thus, the record suggests that the defendant’s plea of guilty was induced by consideration other than his desire to obtain more favorable sentencing for himself, and that the defendant was deprived of representation that was “singlemindedly devoted to his best interests as required by both the Constitution of the United States and the New York State Constitution” … . People v Wentland, 2021 NY Slip Op 00578, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT TOOK THE GUN FROM THE VICTIM AND KILLED THE VICTIM IN SELF DEFENSE; THE DEFENDANT’S BRIEF, TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON AFTER THE SHOOTING DID NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon conviction, over a dissent, determined the temporary possession of the gun did not meet the criteria for criminal possession of a weapon second degree. The gun belonged to the victim. During a struggle with the defendant the gun fell to the ground. Both the defendant and the victim dove for the gun. The defendant retrieved it and shot the victim. The defendant held on to the gun very briefly and then disposed of it. The defendant was acquitted of murder:

As reflected by the fact that the jury acquitted the defendant of the murder charge, based upon the defense of justification, the defendant initially took possession of the gun with a valid legal excuse … , and there is no evidence that the defendant retained the gun beyond opportunities to hand it over to the authorities … . The cases cited by our dissenting colleague are clearly distinguishable, involving situations where a defendant retained possession of a gun until it was found by the police … , retained access to the gun after hiding it in a secure location … , acted furtively when confronted by police with a weapon on his person … , or disposed of the weapon during hot pursuit by the police … .

Indeed, our dissenting colleague acknowledges that turning the gun over to authorities is not an element of temporary and lawful possession … . Here, the defendant retained the gun for a brief period while he looked for his brother, and, not finding him, unloaded the gun and disposed of it in the trash. At trial, when he was asked about his intention, the defendant responded, “[m]y intention this is not my gun. Why hold it.” The evidence indicated that the defendant retained the gun for a sufficient time to dispose of it. The fact that he disposed of the gun without turning it into the authorities did not convert his temporary and lawful possession of the gun into illegal possession … . People v Rose, 2021 NY Slip Op 00577, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

/ ,

A NEW TRIAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT RESPOND TO A NOTE FROM THE JURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge committed a mode of proceedings error by not responding to a note from the jury:

… [A] new trial is required based upon the Supreme Court’s failure to comply with CPL 310.30, in accordance with the procedures set forth in People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270, 279). CPL 310.30 “imposes two responsibilities on trial courts upon receipt of a substantive note from a deliberating jury: the court must provide counsel with meaningful notice of the content of the note, and the court must provide a meaningful response to the jury” … . Where a trial court fails to fulfill its responsibility to provide meaningful notice of the content of the note, “a mode of proceedings error occurs, and reversal is . . . required even in the absence of an objection” … .

Here, the jury submitted a note requesting to view a specific portion of surveillance video taken from the victim’s building. The Supreme Court failed to notify the parties regarding the existence of the note, failed to read the contents of the note into the record, and failed to respond to the note. People v Everett, 2021 NY Slip Op 00575, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

/

THE GRAND LARCENY TOOK PLACE IN NEW JERSEY AND IS NOT A “RESULT OFFENSE;” THEREFORE NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the grand larceny indictment should have been dismissed because New York did not have territorial jurisdiction. The grand larceny took place in New Jersey and is not a “result offense:”

Where New York’s territorial jurisdiction over an offense is in dispute, the People bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction under CPL 20.20 beyond a reasonable doubt … . Here, the People did not dispute the defendant’s claim that none of the elements of the alleged offense occurred in New York, and did not seek to establish, for instance, that the complainant’s bank account was located in New York … . Rather, the People argued only that territorial jurisdiction was properly based on CPL 20.20(2)(a) because grand larceny was a “result offense” and the alleged “result” occurred in New York, and the County Court denied the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge on this narrow ground.

“When a specific consequence, such as the death of the victim in a homicide case, is an element of an offense, the occurrence of such consequence constitutes the ‘result’ of such offense. An offense of which a result is an element is a ‘result offense'” (CPL 20.10[3]). The elements of larceny are (1) intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or herself or to a third person, and (2) the wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of such property … . Contrary to the People’s contention, since no “specific consequence” is an element of grand larceny in the fourth degree, it follows that larceny in the fourth degree is not a “result offense” within the meaning of CPL 20.10(3) … . People v Cousar, 2021 NY Slip Op 00573, Second Dept 4-3-21

 

/

NYC FIRE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO PROTECT PRIVACY AND WERE NOT INTER-AGENCY MATERIALS; THEREFORE THE FOIL REQUESTS FOR THESE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined certain FOIL requests for NYC Fire Department (FDNY) should have been granted:

… [T]he FDNY withheld the records identified in the petitioner’s FOIL request numbers 4, 9, and 16, which sought records concerning requests for religious accommodations and the determinations made thereon, and accommodations from the FDNY dress requirements. The FDNY withheld those records on the grounds that releasing them would be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b) and the records were inter-agency materials exempt by Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g). * * *

… [T]he FDNY failed to sustain its burden of proving that the personal privacy exemption applied to the records sought, since it failed to establish that the identifying details could not be redacted so as to not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy … . Its conclusory assertions that the records fall within the exemption were insufficient to meet its burden of proving that the statutory exemption applies … . The FDNY should have produced the requested records, redacting whatever portions are necessary to safeguard the identities of the individuals who sought the accommodation, and leaving nonidentifying information intact … .

The FDNY also failed to establish that the exemption for inter-agency materials applied, since the agency determinations sought were final on the accommodation requests and therefore not subject to the exemption … . Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v New York City Fire Dept., 2021 NY Slip Op 00556, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

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