You are here: / CPLR 204(A) IN CONJUNCTION WITH RPAPL 1301(3) TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS...

Search Results

/ , ,

CPLR 204(A) IN CONJUNCTION WITH RPAPL 1301(3) TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHILE THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING, FROM 2010 TO 2013, RENDERING THE SECOND FORECLOSURE ACTION IN 2017 TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, reversing Supreme Court, determined the instant foreclosure action was not time barred because CPLR 204(a) in conjunction with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1301(3) prohibited bringing the instant action while the first action was pending:

In September 2003, defendant, in exchange for a loan to purchase a residence, executed a note secured by a mortgage on that real property. The note and mortgage were later assigned to plaintiff. After defendant failed to make some payments, on May 5, 2010 plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action against defendant, which Supreme Court (Drago, J.) dismissed on October 30, 2013 for failure to prosecute. In April 2015, Supreme Court (Buchannan, J.) denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal. In 2017, plaintiff commenced a second foreclosure action. * * *

CPLR 204 (a) provides that, “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” * * *

The statute that plaintiff relies on, in conjunction with CPLR 204 (a), is RPAPL 1301 (3), which provides that, while an action for a mortgage debt “is pending or after final judgment for the plaintiff therein, no other action shall be commenced or maintained to recover any part of the mortgage debt, without leave of the court in which the former action was brought.” The purpose of RPAPL 1301 (3) is “to shield the mortgagor from the expense and annoyance of two independent actions at the same time with reference to the same debt … . … [P]laintiff established that the statute was tolled during the pendency of the first foreclosure action, from May 2010 to October 2013. Citimortgage, Inc. v Ramirez, 2020 NY Slip Op 07970, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

/

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECTLY NAME THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 305(C) AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend to complaint to reflect the correct name of the defendant should have been granted:

In September 2016, plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell in the bathroom of a McDonald’s restaurant located in the Town of Williamson, Wayne County. In August 2019, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant to recover for the injuries that he sustained. Defendant answered, asserting, among other affirmative defenses, a lack of personal jurisdiction and that she is not a proper party because she does not own, operate, maintain or control the business in which plaintiff was allegedly injured. Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds, contending that “Nancyone, Inc.,” a New York corporation for which defendant is a corporate officer, owned and operated the subject McDonald’s restaurant and that it had not been properly served with the summons and complaint prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. …

Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of his cross motion that sought leave to amend his complaint pursuant to CPLR 305 (c). We agree. As relevant here, “[i]f a defendant has been misnamed in the caption of the summons and complaint, but has nonetheless been properly served within the limitations period, amendment of the summons and complaint should be allowed in the absence of demonstrated prejudice to a substantial right” … . Kachadourian v Wilkes, 2020 NY Slip Op 07972, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, THE JUDGE IMPROPERLY IMPOSED AN ENHANCED SENTENCE AND CHANGED THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea in the interest of justice, determined: (1) defendant was not informed of the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty; (2) the judge improperly enhanced defendant’s sentence; and (3) the judge improperly changed the terms of the plea agreement:

County Court advised defendant that, by pleading guilty, he would be giving up “all of [his] constitutional rights, [his] presumption of innocence, [his] rights to a jury trial, suppression hearings, also all of [his] appellate rights.” There was no mention of defendant’s right to be confronted by witnesses or the privilege against self-incrimination … . Furthermore, the record fails to disclose that the court ascertained whether defendant conferred with his counsel regarding the trial-related rights that were being forfeited upon his guilty plea … . Rather, the court merely asked him whether he had enough time to talk with his counsel about “the facts of [the] drug charges, going to trial, not going to trial[] and things like that” and “[his] jury trial rights, all [his] other rights.” In the absence of any affirmative showing that defendant fully comprehended and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights, the plea must be vacated as invalid … . … “A sentencing court may not impose an enhanced sentence unless it has informed the defendant of specific conditions that the defendant must abide by or risk such enhancement, or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his or her plea before the enhanced sentence is imposed” … . The plea colloquy reflects that, by pleading guilty, the People would recommend that defendant be sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 3½ years … . … [T]he court abruptly sentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms of nine years … and directed that the sentence be served under the supervision of Willard. County Court abused its authority by changing the terms of the plea agreement … . … [T]he court, without any discussion with the parties, unilaterally conditioned defendant’s opportunity to participate in the Willard program on accepting the maximum nine-year sentence. Additionally, the record does not indicate that defendant was given the opportunity to withdraw his plea … . Because defendant was not informed of, or actually understood, the ramifications of the sentencing change nor was provided with the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea, the plea was invalid …”. People v Drayton, 2020 NY Slip Op 07952, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT GIVE TIMELY NOTICE OF ALIBI EVIDENCE, COUNTY COURT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY PRECLUDING THE ALIBI EVIDENCE; THE UNPRESERVED ERROR WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the grand larceny conviction in the interest of justice, determined defendant’s late request to present alibi evidence should have been granted:

County Court abused its discretion by precluding defendant from introducing testimony from defendant’s father at trial. …  The court rested its entire conclusion on the failure to comply with the Criminal Procedure Law and that good cause was not shown, despite the fact that defendant was not given an opportunity to respond to the People’s informal motion to preclude the alibi testimony. Notably, the court did not make any findings that defendant had an improper purpose in providing the late notice nor did it weigh the possibility of prejudice to the People against the right of defendant to present a defense … . Instead, the court, without hearing from defendant, implemented the most “drastic sanction” without considering any lesser sanctions that may have protected the People from potential prejudice … . In making the appropriate inquiry, alibi testimony would have been important to defendant’s defense given that much of the People’s argument was based on accomplice testimony and that the People would not have been prejudiced as they were already aware of the father’s statement. “Therefore, we find that County Court violated defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense” … . People v Lukosavich, 2020 NY Slip Op 07953, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS THE TARGET OF A STING WHERE THE INVESTIGATOR POSED AS THE STEPFATHER OF A 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL WITH WHOM THE DEFENDANT WAS INVITED TO HAVE SEX; WHEN THE INVESTIGATOR SUMMONED THE STEPDAUGHTER TO MEET THE DEFENDANT, HE GOT UP AND WALKED AWAY; THE ATTEMPTED RAPE, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant did not come close enough to committing the sexual offenses suggested by the undercover investigator to meet the criteria for attempted rape, attempted criminal sexual act, and attempted endangering the welfare of a child. The undercover investigator suggested sex with his fictional 14-year-old stepdaughter. When the investigator indicated he was summoning the stepdaughter to meet the defendant, the defendant got up and walked away:

… [W]e cannot conclude that defendant came dangerously near engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact of any iteration with a minor under the age of 15 or any other act that would likely be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child … . Although defendant engaged in conversations contemplating sexual contact with a 14-year-old and drove to a location where he was told a 14-year-old would be, under the circumstances of this case, his conduct did not pass the stage of mere preparation and bring him dangerously close to committing the attempted crimes of rape in the second degree, a criminal sexual act in the second degree or an act endangering the welfare of a child … . Moreover, intent to engage in sexual intercourse and the criminal sexual acts charged in the indictment cannot be inferred from the evidence, particularly given defendant’s passive and noncommittal statements when discussing potential contact with the 14-year-old stepdaughter, as well as the fact that defendant did not bring a condom or any other sexual item to the campsite … . Accordingly, inasmuch as the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, we reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the indictment … . People v Hiedeman, 2020 NY Slip Op 07954, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

/ ,

FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO JAIL FOR NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT BECAUSE HE HAD PAID THE ARREARS BEFORE THE ORDER OF COMMITMENT WAS ISSUED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to sentence father to jail for failure to pay child support after father paid the arrears:

The father contends that Family Court abused its discretion by imposing a 90-day jail sentence for the father’s willful violation of the prior support order. We agree. Where a willful violation has been found, Family Court may “commit the respondent to jail for a term not to exceed six months” … .  “Such a sentence is in the nature of a civil contempt, which may only continue until such time as the offender, if it is within his or her power, complies with the support order” … . Here, the father presented payment at the hearing for the full amount of arrears owed and, therefore, Family Court abused its discretion when it issued the order of commitment … . Matter of Rondeau v Jerome, 2020 NY Slip Op 07960, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

/ ,

CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A VALID EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application to serve a late notice of claim with respect to one of the two defendants (Albany Port District Commission) should have been granted. Although the excuse for failure to file was inadequate (ignorance of the requirement), the defendant had timely notice of the claim by virtue of surveillance cameras and an incident report, and defendant was not prejudiced by the delay:

… [M]embers of the Port Security Department came to the scene of the accident soon after petitioner’s fall to check on his condition and were able to observe the area where petitioner fell. Petitioner also averred that the Port Security Department was located approximately one hundred feet from where he fell and that there are surveillance cameras on the Port Security Department office building that are pointed at the area where petitioner fell. Petitioner also proffered an incident report form completed by one of the members of the Port Security Department who came to the scene the day of the accident. This form reflects the location of petitioner’s fall and that petitioner fell on ice, injured his back and was transported to the hospital by an ambulance. Thus, the Port had “more than merely generalized awareness of an accident and injuries” sufficient to establish actual notice … . …

… [T]he … standard requires a petitioner to initially “present some evidence or plausible argument that supports a finding of no substantial prejudice” … . Here, petitioner met this burden by showing … that the Port had actual notice of the incident sufficient to allow it to investigate the accident shortly after it occurred … . Additionally, petitioner submitted photographs and a video that suggest that the condition has not substantially changed from its appearance at the time of the accident. Matter of Perkins v Albany Port Dist. Commn., 2020 NY Slip Op 07963, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE CARRIER HAD WAIVED ITS DEFENSE THAT THE INJURIES DID NOT ARISE OUT OF CLAIMAINT’S EMPLOYMENT BY FAILING TO SERVE A PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT, CLAIMANT WAS STILL REQUIRED TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF SUCH A CONNECTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined that, although the carrier had waived its defense that claimant’s injuries did not arise out of claimants’ employment as a police chief (by not serving a prehearing conference statement), the claimant was still required to present affirmative proof of that causal connection:

… [W]e agree with the Board that, as a result of its waiver of defenses, the carrier was precluded from submitting evidence on the issue of whether claimant’s injuries arose out of and in the course of claimant’s employment … . However, the waiver of defenses did not relieve claimant of his obligation of coming forward with sufficient proof to establish that he sustained a compensable injury … . In that regard, claimant bore the burden of demonstrating that a sufficient causal nexus existed between his employment and the motor vehicle accident that caused his injuries … . The degree of control exercised by the employer over the claimant’s activities at the time of the accident is controlling in determining whether the requisite causal nexus exists … .

The record evidence establishes that claimant, the Village Chief of Police, was in an accident while driving his police vehicle on the third day of a personal weekend trip to his son’s college, roughly 4½ to 5 hours away from the Village. Claimant testified that he carried his work cell phone, that he was on call 24 hours a day and that he drove his police vehicle to his weekend destination so that he could return to the Village if needed. However, claimant testified that he was not recalled at any point during the weekend and was not in the course of returning to work or attending to any other police matter at the time of his accident. Matter of Love v Village of Pleasantville, 2020 NY Slip Op 07968, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

/ , , ,

ONE PURPOSE FOR ASSESSING ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST THE AGENCY IN A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW CASE IS TO DISCOURAGE DELAYS IN RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS; THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP) TURNED OVER THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE APPEAL, THE DEP STILL SHOULD PAY THE ATTORNEY’S FEES RELATED TO THE APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the request for attorney’s fees for the appeal in this Freedom of Information Law action should not have been denied. Supreme Court reasoned that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had turned over the requested documents before the appeal:

Supreme Court suggested that it would be “unduly punitive” to include appellate counsel fees and costs in its award given that DEC had already disclosed all responsive, nonprivileged documents to petitioners. The goal of an award of counsel fees and costs under Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (c), however, is to deter “unreasonable delays and denials of access and thereby encourage every unit of government to make a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of FOIL” … . As we detailed in our prior decision (169 AD3d at 1311-1312), DEC failed to respond to petitioners’ FOIL administrative appeal in a timely manner and disclosed responsive documents after petitioners advanced a FOIL claim in this action/proceeding, and DEC then resisted petitioners’ efforts to recover counsel fees and costs incurred as a result of its dilatory conduct. In our view, those facts demonstrate that the portion of the prior appeal relating to petitioners’ FOIL claim stemmed from “the very kinds of unreasonable delays and denials of access which the counsel fee provision seeks to deter,” and Supreme Court accordingly abused its discretion in declining to include the counsel fees and costs connected thereto in its award … . Matter of 101CO, LLC v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2020 NY Slip Op 07969, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

/ ,

THE REAL PROPERTY PASSED TO THE BENEFICIARY IN THE WILL UPON DEATH, NOT UPON SUBSEQUENT PROBATE; THEREFORE THE CONVEYANCE WAS VALID AND THE DEED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED VOID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined plaintiff’s deed inherited the real property upon decedent’s death, not after probate. Therefore the conveyance of the property by the beneficiary, McKenzie, to plaintiff was valid:

… [T]he decedent’s will, unequivocally and without limitation, devised McKenzie one third of the residuary estate, and this interest vested in McKenzie at the moment of the decedent’s death … . Although the vesting of McKenzie’s interest was “subject to the executor[‘s] duty to ensure that all debts and obligations of the estate[ ] were met” … , the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that McKenzie’s conveyance of her interest impeded the executor’s duties, and thus, failed to establish, prima facie, that McKenzie’s interest had not yet vested when she conveyed it to the plaintiff after the decedent’s death … .  72634552 Corp. v Okon, 2020 NY Slip Op 07845, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

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