You are here: / THE MERE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE...

Search Results

/ ,

THE MERE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT; EXPLICIT NOTICE OF DE-ACCELERATION IS REQUIRED EITHER IN THE MOTION TO DISCONTINUE ITSELF OR IN A SEPARATE NOTICE; THEREFORE THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over an extensive partial dissent, determined the discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action did not, standing alone, de-accelerate the debt. Therefore the instant foreclosure action was time-barred. The Second Department noted that the plaintiff did not submit the motion papers for the discontinuance and therefore did not submit any evidence that the debt was explicitly de-accelerated in those papers, or in any other notice to the defendant. Such explicit notice is required:

A de-acceleration of the full debt revives the borrower’s right to make the monthly payments that became due between the time the loan was accelerated and the time the acceleration was revoked, together with the right to make future monthly installment payments. Since the borrower may continue to assume that its lender or servicer will not accept post-acceleration monthly payments, the lender, in order to effectively rescind the acceleration, should be required to notify the borrower that the right to make monthly payments is restored and that the lender will accept the tender of such payments … . * * *

A bare discontinuance of litigation does not nullify the fact that a contractual right to accelerate has been unilaterally exercised pursuant to the terms of a note. An acceleration of loan debt by the transmittal of a letter or by the commencement of an action in a court of law has legal implications, such as the financial penalties authorized under the note, the potential negative effect upon the borrower’s credit rating, and reliance by the borrower that monthly payments will no longer be expected or accepted and thereby prevent any pay-down of the balance owed. To occur, none of these or other consequences of an acceleration require any permission, ruling, stipulation, decision, or order of a court, as they are independent of the litigation … . Trust v Barua, 2020 NY Slip Op 03095, Second Dept 6-3-20

 

/ ,

THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE; IT WAS MERELY AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, applying the “doctrine of definiteness” determined the option to renew the lease was not enforceable and the lease had therefore expired:

“The doctrine of definiteness or certainty is well established in contract law. In short, it means that a court cannot enforce a contract unless it is able to determine what in fact the parties have agreed to” … . Among the terms of a lease that must be known is the amount of rent that is to be paid … . The doctrine of definiteness, however, is not applied rigidly, and “where it is clear from the language of an agreement that the parties intended to be bound and there exists an objective method for supplying a missing term, the court should endeavor to hold the parties to their bargain” … . In the absence of an explicit contract term, the requirement of definiteness may be satisfied where: (1) the agreement itself sets forth an agreed methodology for determining the missing term within its four corners or (2) the agreement invites recourse to an objective extrinsic event, condition, or standard to ascertain the term … .

Here, the parties’ failure to set forth either the amount of rent to be paid during the renewal period, or an agreed formula, methodology, or objective extrinsic event by which that rent could be determined, rendered the option to renew an unenforceable agreement to agree … . Vizel v Vitale, 2020 NY Slip Op 03140, Second Dept 6-3-20

 

/ ,

NOTICE OF DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage debt was never accelerated and therefore the six-year statute of limitations did not begin to run in this foreclosure action:

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[4]). “[E]ven if a mortgage is payable in installments …, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the Statute of Limitations begins to run on the entire debt” … .

… [T]he May 3, 2007, notice of default, which advised that the loan would be accelerated if the default was not cured by June 7, 2007, was “nothing more than a letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, which [did] not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause”  … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Mongru, 2020 NY Slip Op 03137, Second Dept 6-3-20

 

/ ,

THE QUARRY OWNER HAD, AS A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE, A VESTED RIGHT TO MINE THAT PORTION OF ITS LAND SUBJECT TO A PENDING APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ZONING BOARD AND SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner had a vested right to mine that portion of its land subject to a pending application for a mining permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Petitioner operated a quarry, which was an allowed pre-existing use of the land, and had a DEC permit to mine 37.5 acres (the entire parcel is 241 acres) The petitioner was seeking a permit from the DEC to expand the number of acres to be mined from 37.5 acres to 94 acres. While the application for the permit was pending, the town enacted a new zoning law that allowed mining on only those lands subject to an existing DEC permit. Petitioner sought a declaration that it had a vested right to mine its entire parcel as a prior nonconforming use and Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding:

” [N]onconforming uses or structures, in existence when a zoning ordinance is enacted, are, as a general rule, constitutionally protected and will be permitted to continue, notwithstanding the contrary provisions of the ordinance'” … . ” By its very nature, quarrying involves a unique use of land. . . . [A]s a matter of practicality as well as economic necessity, a quarry operator will not excavate his entire parcel of land at once, but will leave areas in reserve, virtually untouched until they are actually needed'” … . “[W]here . . . the owner engages in substantial quarrying activities on a distinct parcel of land over a long period of time and these activities clearly manifest an intent to appropriate the entire parcel to the particular business of quarrying, the extent of [the] protection afforded by the nonconforming use will extend to the boundaries of the parcel even though extensive excavation may have been limited to only a portion of the property” … . …

… [T]he petitioner demonstrated that it has a vested right to mine those 94 acres as a prior nonconforming use … . In opposition, the respondents/defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Further, for the same reasons, the petitioner demonstrated that so much of the ZBA’s determination as found that the petitioner does not have a vested right to mine those 94 acres was affected by an error of law, arbitrary, and capricious … . …

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the petitioner’s motion to the extent of declaring that the petitioner has a vested right to mine 94 acres of its property as a prior nonconforming use … . Matter of Red Wing Props., Inc. v Town of Rhinebeck, 2020 NY Slip Op 03119, Second Dept 6-3-20

 

/ ,

RETURN OF THE CHILDREN TO MOTHER AFTER A TEMPORARY REMOVAL WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the return of children to mother after a temporary removal was not supported by a sound and substantial basis:

“An application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 to return a child who has been temporarily removed shall’ be granted unless the Family Court finds that “the return presents an imminent risk to the child’s life or health”‘” … . The court’s determination will not be disturbed if it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record … . In making its determination, the court ” must weigh, in the factual setting before it, whether the imminent risk to the child can be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal'” … .The court ” must balance that risk against the harm removal might bring, and it must determine factually which course is in the child’s best interests'” … . “Evidence that the children who are the subject of the proceeding were previously harmed while in the parent’s care is not required where it is shown that the parent demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment with respect to one child so as to create a substantial risk of harm to any child in that parent’s care” … . The child services agency bears the burden of establishing that the subject child would be at imminent risk and therefore should remain in its custody … . …

The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that, after one of the subject children reported to the mother that her older brother had been sexually abusing her since she was 10 years old, the mother did not address the sexual abuse and did not provide increased supervision for the subject children. Further, the petitioner demonstrated that the mother left one of the subject children in the older brother’s care, for at least a period of time, while she gave birth to the third subject child, in violation of an order dated March 23, 2018. Under the circumstances, we cannot agree that the return of two of the subject children to the mother’s custody, notwithstanding the conditions that were imposed, would not present an imminent risk to the children’s life or health … . Matter of Carter R. (Camesha B.), 2020 NY Slip Op 03118, Second Dept 6-3-20

 

/ , , ,

HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION SECURITY DEPOSIT VOUCHERS MUST BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF CASH DEPOSITS; TO REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE VOUCHERS VIOLATES THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE VOUCHER PROGRAM DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW OR THE URSTADT LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined plaintiff Estates, a leasing agent for multi-family apartment buildings in New York City, must accept a Human Resources Administration (HRA) security deposit voucher for an apartment. When the potential tenant, Walters, applied for an apartment, plaintiff’s employee told her the security deposit must be cash:

We find that the court correctly concluded that HRA’s security deposit vouchers are a “lawful source of income” under the City HRL [Human Rights Law] (Administrative Code § 8-102) and are therefore included in the HRL’s prohibition against discrimination by a landlord against a prospective tenant because of “any lawful source of income” (Administrative Code § 8-107[5][a][1]). “The term lawful source of income’ includes income derived from social security, or any form of federal, state or local public assistance or housing assistance including section 8 vouchers” … .

Administrative Code § 8-107(5) prohibits a landlord from refusing to accept a Section 8 voucher from an existing tenant or refusing a lease to a prospective tenant who seeks to pay rent with a Section 8 voucher … . …

Supreme Court correctly found that HRA’s security deposit voucher program does not violate Social Services Law § 143-c. * * *

Finally, we find that the voucher program does not violate the Urstadt Law (McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 8605). “The Urstadt Law was intended to check City attempts, whether by local law or regulation, to expand the set of buildings subject to rent control or stabilization'” … . Here, a landlord’s acceptance of such security deposit vouchers “will have no impact in expanding the buildings subject to the rent stabilization law or expanding regulation under the rent laws” … . Estates NY Real Estate Servs. LLC v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03093, First Dept 5-28-20

 

/ ,

THE EXISTENCE OF A HANDRAIL ON THE LEFT OF THE STAIRS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WHERE THERE WAS NO HANDRAIL ON THE RIGHT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this stairway slip and fall case should not have been granted. The fact that there was a handrail on the left did not warrant summary judgment because there was no handrail on the right:

Plaintiff … was injured when, while descending the right side of the exterior staircase of the subject premises, she slipped and when she tried to grab onto a handrail, there was no right-sided handrail. A triable issue of fact thus exists as to whether the absence of a required handrail on that side of the staircase was a proximate cause of the accident … . Defendants’ argument that the missing handrail on the right side of the staircase did not proximately cause plaintiff’s fall since she chose not to use the available left-side handrail, is directed to the issue of comparative negligence … . Gil v Margis Realty LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03089, First Dept 5-28-20

 

/ ,

MISNOMER DID NOT PREJUDICE THE CITY; CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mis-description of the defendant in the summons and complaint did not prejudice the city, which was notice of the plaintiff’s suit:

The summons and complaint were served on Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, which answered on behalf of the City of New York. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been denied and plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the summons and complaint to correct the misnomer granted. The City was not prejudiced by the mis-description and was on notice that plaintiff intended to seek a judgment against it (see CPLR 305[c] … ). Rivera v New York City Dept. of Sanitation, 2020 NY Slip Op 03085, First Dept 5-28-20

 

/ , , ,

OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD MAY BE LIABLE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE PURSUANT TO A 2019 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION; VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this sidewalk slip and fall case, determined: (1) a 2019 Court of Appeals decision clarified the defendant out-of-possession landlord’s duty to keep sidewalks safe, notwithstanding any maintenance arrangement with a tenant; (2) although the plaintiff was required to allege the defendant violated the NYC Administrative Code and failed to do so, plaintiff could rely on the Code provision in opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion; and (3) plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the ice condition existed before the alleged storm in progress at or near the time of the fall:

… [T]he court’s determination that defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he is an out-of-possession landlord is no longer sound in light of the Court of Appeals’s decision in Xiang Fu He v Troon Mgt., Inc. (34 NY3d 167 [2019]). …[E]ven if … plaintiff was required to plead defendant’s violation of Administrative Code of City of New York § 7-210 – which he undisputedly failed to do – plaintiff’s reliance thereon for the first time in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment was permissible, given that doing so did not raise any new theory of liability or prejudice … . Herrera v Vargas, 2020 NY Slip Op 03082, First Dept 5-28-20

 

/

ALTHOUGH THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THE DEFENDANT WITH THE INTENTIONAL KILLING OF SCOTT WRIGHT, THE JURY WAS TOLD IN ANSWER TO ITS QUESTION THAT IT COULD CONVICT THE DEFENDANT IF THEY FOUND DEFENDANT INTENDED TO KILL THE NEXT PERSON WHO CAME THROUGH THE DOOR, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE IDENTITY OF THAT PERSON; THE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS DEEMED PROPER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming defendant’s murder conviction, determined the People were not required to prove defendant intended to kill the victim named in the indictment (Wright ). Although the indictment charged defendant with the intentional murder of Wright, the jury wanted to know if they could convict if they concluded defendant simply intended to kill the next person who came through the door (who happened to be Wright). The judge answered the jury’s question in the affirmative and the Third Department held the jury was properly instructed:

As defendant argues, “a jury charge may not constructively amend an indictment by varying the theory of the prosecution” … . “However, not every fact mentioned in an indictment is essential to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged, and thus it is not necessary in every case that the People prove all acts alleged in the indictment when the remaining acts alleged are sufficient to sustain a conviction” … . Significantly, the identity of the victim is not one of the elements of the crime of murder in the second degree … . Here, the People chose to go beyond the elements that they were required to prove to obtain a conviction both by asserting in the indictment that defendant specifically intended to shoot Wright and by making that argument at trial. Nonetheless, the jury was not required to accept this part of the People’s theory to convict defendant of murder in the second degree, so long as it found that the People had proven the elements of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we find that the instruction did not alter the prosecution’s theory … . …

… [W]e reject defendant’s contention that County Court’s supplemental instruction prejudiced defendant by introducing the new legal principle of mistake of fact. As defendant argues, the People made no arguments based on that principle during the trial. However, defendant’s theory of defense throughout the trial was that the gun went off accidentally and that defendant did not intend to shoot Wright or anyone else. This defense of accident would not have been altered or affected if the question whether defendant mistook Wright for someone else had been raised earlier; as previously noted, the identity of the victim is not an element of the crime of murder in the second degree. People v Lee, 2020 NY Slip Op 03049, Third Dept 5-28-20

 

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