You are here: / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS DOING BUSINESS...

Search Results

/ , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a defendant in this foreclosure action brought by a foreign corporation did not demonstrate the corporation was doing business in New York without authorization. Therefore defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on that ground should not have been granted:

“Business Corporation Law § 1312(a) constitutes a bar to the maintenance of an action by a foreign corporation found to be doing business in New York without . . . the required authorization to do business there” … . “The purpose of that section is to regulate foreign corporations which are doing business’ within the State, not . . . to enable the avoidance of contractual obligations” … . “[T]he party relying upon this statutory barrier bears the burden of proving that the corporation’s business activities in New York were not just casual or occasional, but so systematic and regular as to manifest continuity of activity in the jurisdiction”… . “[A]bsent proof establishing that the [subject corporation] is doing business in New York, it is presumed that [it] is doing business in [the] State of incorporation, and not in New York” … .

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that “[the appellant] conducted continuous activities in [New York] essential to its corporate business” … . Therefore, “the presumption that [the appellant] does business, not in New York but in its State of incorporation has not been overcome” … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Didato, 2020 NY Slip Op 03903, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT ABSENT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the referee’s report should not have been confirmed in the absence of a hearing on notice to the property owner, TEP:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have confirmed the referee’s report in the absence of a hearing on notice to TEP (see CPLR 4313 …). Although the notice accompanying the plaintiff’s proposed referee’s oath notified TEP of the due date for the submission of documents to the referee, it did not indicate that the submission of such papers would be in lieu of a hearing … . Further, the Supreme Court erred in rejecting TEP’s contention, raised in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, that ” [t]he referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record inasmuch as the computation was premised upon unproduced business records'” … . Moreover, the referee’s report also failed to identify any documents or other sources upon which the referee based her finding that the mortgaged premises should be sold in one parcel … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Tigani, 2020 NY Slip Op 03901, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

/ ,

EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED ONCE A MONTH DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined there were questions of fact about the cause of the fall (cracks in the asphalt), whether the defendant had notice of the condition, and whether the defect was trivial. Evidence the area was inspected once a month was no sufficient. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The defendant … failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition of the driveway … . To meet its initial burden to show a lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer probative evidence demonstrating a proximity in time between when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell … . The affidavit of the defendant’s maintenance worker submitted in support of the defendant’s motion referred only to his general inspection practices but did not refer to any specific inspection in the area of the plaintiff’s fall relative to the date of the incident. Another employee of the defendant averred in an affidavit that she had inspected the driveway approximately seven weeks prior to the plaintiff’s fall and found all routes were clear of obstructions. She also averred that the defendant’s maintenance department inspected the driveway at least once per month. This evidence was insufficient to establish, prima facie, lack of constructive notice … .

The defendant also failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the basis that the alleged defect was trivial. The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the cracked condition of the driveway was trivial as a matter of law, and thus, nonactionable … . Croshier v New Horizons Resources, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03892, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

/ ,

THE COURT’S ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA FOR A 90-DAY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to active status and to extend the time to serve and file a note of issue should have been granted. Supreme Court, after a compliance conference, directed plaintiffs to file a note of issue by August 4, 2016, which was 21 days from the date of the compliance conference order. The compliance order therefore did not meet the statutory criteria for a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216:

The compliance conference order dated July 14, 2016, did not constitute a valid 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 because it directed the plaintiffs to file a note of issue within 21 days, rather than 90 days, of the date of the order … . Furthermore, the compliance conference order failed to set forth any specific conduct constituting neglect by the plaintiffs in proceeding with the litigation (see CPLR 3216[b][3] …). In addition, the Supreme Court failed to give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 … .

Since the statutory preconditions to dismissal were not met, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 … .

Contrary to the respondents’ contention, this action could not have properly been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3126, since there was no motion requesting this relief … . Christiano v Heatherwood House at Holbrook II, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03891, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

/ ,

THE LANDLORD AND PROPERTY MANAGER DEMONSTRATED THE POWER-OPERATED DOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY STRUCK PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF ANY DEFECTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the landlord (North Shore Towers) and the property manager (Greenthal Management) demonstrated the power-operated door which allegedly struck plaintiff as she walked through the doorway was not defective. Therefore the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted:

A landowner has a duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition to prevent the occurrence of foreseeable injuries … . “In order for a landowner to be liable in tort to a plaintiff who is injured as a result of an allegedly defective condition upon property, it must be established that a defective condition existed and that the landowner affirmatively created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … .

Here, North Shore Towers and Greenthal Management established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the subject door did not constitute a dangerous or defective condition … .. In support of their motion, they submitted evidence that they conducted daily inspections of the door, that the door activating system had been fully replaced two months before the incident, that, after the new system had been installed, there had been no complaints of the door malfunctioning prior to the incident, and that the door functioned in accordance with industry standards. Alkon v North Shore Towers Apts. Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03883, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

/ ,

WATER VALVE CAP OVER WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WHILE PLAYING BASKETBALL IN THE STREET WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court but on different grounds, determined the water valve cap over which infant plaintiff allegedly slipped (tripped) and fell while playing basketball in the street was a nonactionable trivial defect. Supreme Court had granted the city’s motion for summary judgment on the ground the city did not receive written notice of the defect:

Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the facts of each case and is a question of fact for the jury … . However, a property owner “may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip” … . “In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury'” … .

“A defendant seeking dismissal of a complaint on the basis that the alleged defect is trivial must make a prima facie showing that the defect is, under the circumstances, physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances do not increase the risks it poses” … . “Photographs which fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, a transcript of the deposition testimony of the infant plaintiff’s father, photographs, and a transcript of the infant plaintiff’s deposition testimony describing the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. This evidence established, prima facie, that the alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law and did not possess the characteristics of a trap or nuisance, and therefore, was not actionable … . Acevedo v City of Yonkers, 2020 NY Slip Op 03881, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank (US Bank) did not demonstrate it had standing to bring the foreclosure action:

A plaintiff has standing to maintain a mortgage foreclosure action where it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced … . Here, the plaintiff established that Chase had possession of the note at issue at the time this action was commenced. However, the plaintiff failed to establish that Chase had the authority to act on its behalf at that time … . US Bank N.A. v Cusati, 2020 NY Slip Op 03943, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

/

CONTRACTOR WHICH WAXED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contractor which waxed the floor where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff because it was not demonstrated the contractor launched an instrument of harm (Espinal factor):

“Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138). Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party … . “A contractor may be said to have assumed a duty of care and, thus, be potentially liable in tort, to third persons when the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm” … . “Where such a duty is alleged, a defendant contractor moving for summary judgment has the burden of eliminating all material issues of fact, and establishing conclusively, that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm by negligently creating the dangerous or defective condition complained of” … .

“A defendant may not be held liable for the application of wax, polish, or paint to a floor . . . unless the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge’ that the product could render the floor dangerously slippery” … . “In the absence of evidence of a negligent application of floor wax or polish, the mere fact that a smooth floor may be shiny or slippery does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence, nor does it give rise to an inference of negligence” … . Union v Excel Commercial Maintenance, 2020 NY Slip Op 03942, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

/ , , ,

CAUSES OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION AND TRESPASS WERE PROPERLY ALLEGED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the causes of action against all but two of the defendants should have been dismissed. Defendant alleged she had an arrangement with the landlord which allowed her to stay in the basement of the premises rent-free in exchange for maintenance of the property. When the landlord died, the landlord’s wife (Brigitte) changed the locks. The Second Department held that the causes of action for wrongful eviction against the landlord’s wife and estate, and the trespass against the landlord’s wife, were sufficiently alleged. However, the causes of action for nuisance, invasion of privacy (Civil Rights Law), and false arrest were not sufficiently alleged. The court also noted that there is no civil cause of action for harassment in New York:

… [T]he plaintiff’s allegation that she performed maintenance on the building in exchange for the exclusive use and possession of the basement, yard, and two closets, and that this arrangement continued following the expiration of the lease … , indicated that a month-to-month tenancy was created and was in effect for as long as she remained in possession of the premises (see Real Property Law § 232-c …), which, according to the complaint, was until March 2017, when she allegedly was wrongfully evicted from the premises. The plaintiff’s allegation that in March 2017, Brigitte changed the locks on the door of the building and refused to provide keys to the plaintiff and permitted her entry into the basement through the cellar door only in response to the plaintiff contacting the police in May 2017, suggests that Brigitte, in effect, acting as agent for the estate, resorted to self-help measures to evict the plaintiff from the premises (see RPAPL 711, 853 …). The complaint, therefore, adequately stated a cause of action alleging wrongful eviction against Brigitte and the estate … . …

The plaintiff’s allegation that … Brigitte entered the basement and yard whenever she wanted for no reason and disturbed the plaintiff’s personal property in the basement sufficiently stated a cause of action alleging trespass … . Trec v Cazares, 2020 NY Slip Op 03941, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

/ , , , ,

DESPITE HAVING MADE A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON THE INSTANT MOTION WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT BY HIS ATTORNEY WHO ACKNOWLEDGED HE TOLD DEFENDANT A GUILTY PLEA WOULD NOT RESULT IN DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. The fact that defendant had made a similar motion which was denied did not preclude the instant motion which, unlike the prior motion, was supported by an affidavit from the attorney who handled defendant’s guilty plea. Defendant argued he would not have pled guilty had he been aware of the deportation consequences:

Contrary to the People’s contention, defendant’s failure to include an affidavit from this attorney on the first CPL article 440 motion did not preclude him from filing the second CPL article 440 motion that did contain such an affidavit (see CPL 440.10 [3] [c]… ). We further note that County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion was not mandatory as CPL 440.10 (3) provides that “in the interest of justice and for good cause shown [the court] may in its discretion grant the motion if it is otherwise meritorious and vacate the judgment” … .

In that vein, we note the numerous statements made in the supporting affidavit of defendant’s former attorney with respect to his representation of defendant in his 2000 criminal matter. The affidavit indicates that, upon being retained by defendant, his sole focus was on negotiating a favorable split sentence that would allow defendant to be released from custody as soon as possible. He admits that, in pursuing a favorable sentence, he did not conduct any investigation of the facts surrounding the underlying criminal offense, initiate any preindictment discovery or otherwise raise what he now identifies are arguably fatal deficiencies in the charges brought against defendant. With respect to defendant’s allegation that he was affirmatively misinformed regarding the potential immigration consequences of entering a guilty plea to a class C drug felony, the attorney candidly concedes that, despite being aware of the fact that defendant was only a lawful permanent resident and not a citizen of the United States at the time that defendant entered his September 2000 guilty plea, he specifically advised defendant that his guilty plea would have no effect on his lawful permanent resident status and that he would not be deported from the country. People v Perez, 2020 NY Slip Op 03825, Third Dept 7-9-20

 

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