You are here: / EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED FRAUD IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATURES WAS NOT SUFFICIENT...

Search Results

/ ,

EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED FRAUD IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATURES WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined respondent’s designating petition should not have been invalidated based on allegations of fraud in acknowledging signatures:

… [T]he court based its determination to invalidate the designating petition on the testimony of a single signatory, who stated that although respondent was the subscribing witness on the petition that she signed, her signature was actually witnessed by a younger man of a different race. While such evidence may warrant invalidation of a designating petition … , cross-examination of the signatory—during which she acknowledged signing four City Court petitions, including one for an individual whose description was similar to that of respondent—called her testimony on direct examination into question. …

… [W]e conclude that respondent’s apparent failure to administer to one signatory “an oath . . . calculated to awaken the conscience and impress the mind of the person taking it in accordance with his religious or ethical beliefs’ ” … did not, on its own, constitute evidence of fraud requiring invalidation of his designating petition … . Matter of Monto v Zeigler, 2020 NY Slip Op 02753, Fourth Dept 5-14-20

 

/

WHETHER THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REASONABLY DESCRIBED IS DISTINCT FROM WHETHER A SEARCH FOR THE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME; THE DOCUMENTS WERE SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED AND THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER A SEARCH WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the FOIL request for NYC Department of Education (DOC) forms used by employees to request absences for religious observances should not have been denied on the ground the documents were not reasonably described. The DOC conceded that it can locate the records, which are kept at the 1700 individual schools. The matter was remitted to address whether it would be unduly burdensome to search for the documents, a distinct ground Supreme Court did not address:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that it was proper for the respondent to deny the petitioner’s request on the ground that the requested records were not reasonably described. The requirement that a FOIL request reasonably describe the records sought is to enable the agency to locate the records in question … . In order for an agency to deny a FOIL request for overbreadth, the agency must demonstrate that the description is ” insufficient for the purposes of locating and identifying the documents sought'” … . Where the request is sufficiently detailed to enable the agency to locate the records in question, the agency cannot complain about the nomenclature of the request as described … . …

The respondent has conflated the requirement of reasonable description with the related, but separate, consideration as to whether it would be unduly burdensome for the respondent to comply with the petitioner’s request. While the respondent’s submissions demonstrate that it knows where the requested records are located, the respondent also maintains that it would be burdensome for it to conduct a search of the personnel files at each of its 1,700 schools to produce the requested records. However … Public Officers Law § 89(3)(a) provides that the “agency shall not deny a request on the basis that the request is voluminous or that locating or reviewing the requested records or providing the requested copies is burdensome because the agency lacks sufficient staffing or on any other basis if the agency may engage an outside professional service to provide copying, programming or other services required to provide the copy, the costs of which the agency may recover pursuant to paragraph (c) of subdivision one of section eighty-seven of this article.” The issue of burden and/or whether the respondent is able to engage an outside professional service to cull the records sought was not addressed by the Supreme Court and we cannot resolve it on this record.  Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2020 NY Slip Op 02785, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE PARTY TWICE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY WITHOUT LISTING THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AS AN ASSET, THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED AND THE ACTION WAS ADDED AS AN ASSET; AT THAT POINT THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE BECAME THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON THE PARTY’S INITIAL FAILURE TO LIST THE ACTION AS AN ASSET, DID NOT APPLY TO THE TRUSTEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion to dismiss the medical malpractice complaint on judicial estoppel grounds should not have been granted. Vormnadiryan commenced a medical malpractice action in 2006. In two bankruptcy proceedings in 2008 and 2016 the medical malpractice action was not listed as an asset by Vormnadiryan. In 2017 Vormnadiryan opened the 2008 bankruptcy action and the medical malpractice action was added as an asset, making the bankruptcy trustee the plaintiff in that action. The Second Department determined Vormandiryan’s initial failure to list the malpractice action as an asset did not subject the bankruptcy trustee, as the plaintiff in the malpractice action, to the judicial estoppel doctrine:

“The integrity of the bankruptcy system depends on full and honest disclosure by debtors of all of their assets. By failing to list causes of action on bankruptcy schedules of assets, the debtor represents that it has no such claims. Thus, the doctrine of judicial estoppel may bar a party from pursuing claims which were not listed in a previous bankruptcy proceeding” … . “Because the doctrine is primarily concerned with protecting the judicial process, relief is granted only when the risk of inconsistent results with its impact on judicial integrity is certain” … . …

Here, the 2008 bankruptcy proceeding was reopened by the Bankruptcy Court so that the 2006 medical malpractice action could be identified as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. Therefore, judicial estoppel cannot be predicated on Vormnadiryan’s failure to list the action as an asset when she originally filed the 2008 bankruptcy petition … . Further, once a bankruptcy proceeding is commenced, all legal or equitable interests of the debtor become part of the bankruptcy estate, including any causes of action (see 11 USC § 541[a][1] … ). The trustee in bankruptcy, as representative of the estate, “has capacity to sue and be sued” … . Pereira v Meisenberg, 2020 NY Slip Op 02815, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

/ , , ,

BECAUSE THE HOLDER OF A FIRST MORTGAGE WAS A DEFENDANT IN THE TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, THE MORTGAGE HOLDER DID NOT NEED TO FILE ITS OWN FORECLOSURE ACTION TO ENFORCE ITS LIEN ON THE SURPLUS TAX-FORECLOSURE-SALE PROCEEDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, determined that HPD,  the holder of a first mortgage on property which was the subject of a tax foreclosure, was entitled to the surplus funds from the tax foreclosure sale. The issue was whether HPD’s action seeking the surplus was time-barred because it didn’t enforce the lien on the surplus within six years of the tax foreclosure sale. The Second Department held no further action to enforce the lien was necessary because HPD was a defendant in the tax foreclosure proceedings:

… HPD’s appearance in the tax lien foreclosure action put [the property owner] and anyone else interested in a potential surplus on notice of HPD’s claims. To require HPD to commence a separate foreclosure action, when an action to foreclose the tax lien was already pending, would serve no useful purpose. NYCTL 1997-1 Trust v Stell, 2020 NY Slip Op 02802, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

/

THE GOVERNOR’S COVID-19-RELATED REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF DESIGNATING-PETITION SIGNATURES UNDER THE ELECTION LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF DESIGNATING-PETITION SIGNATURES UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the governor’s covid-19-related reduction in the threshold number of designating-petition signatures required under the Election Law did not apply to the threshold number of signatures required by the New York City Charter:

There is no evidence that the Governor intended to alter the New York City Charter’s threshold of 450 signatures as opposed to the Election Law statutory threshold of 900. Given that the Governor specifically referred to the Election Law threshold as providing the relevant baseline to reduce the number of signatures in Executive Order No. 202.2, to the extent that there may be any conflict by application of a different threshold baseline set forth in the New York City Charter, Executive Order (Cuomo) No. 202.3 (9 NYCRR 8.202.3) would warrant suspension of the contrary New York City Charter provision. Matter of Council v Zapata, 2020 NY Slip Op 02750, Second Dept 5-11-20

 

/ , ,

THE CONCEPTS OF ‘OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE’ AND ‘HARMLESS ERROR’ DISCUSSED IN DEPTH; THE MAJORITY FOUND THE EVIDENCE OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR HARMLESS; THE CONCURRENCE FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING BUT FOUND THE ERROR HARMLESS UNDER A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS; THE DISSENT FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reached different conclusions about how the erroneous denial of defendant’s motion to suppress the cell site location data should be treated on appeal under a harmless error analysis. The majority and the concurrence applied different harmless error analyses but concluded the conviction should be affirmed. The dissent argued the error was not harmless requiring a new trial. The decision includes useful, comprehensive discussions of “overwhelming evidence” and “harmless error. “The dissent summarized the three positions as follows:

From the dissent:

In essence, the majority applies the longstanding New York test of first assessing whether the evidence adduced at trial was overwhelming in favor of conviction, concludes that it was, and therefore the admission of the cell phone location data was harmless since it could not have influenced the result of the trial. The concurrence disagrees with the finding that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, but finds the error of admitting the cell phone location data nonetheless harmless; the concurrence maintains that, since its effect was to favor, or disfavor, the contentions of each side equally, this is one of the exceedingly rare cases where, despite the absence of overwhelming evidence of guilt, the admission of tainted evidence, however misguided, was, in the words of the leading Court of Appeals case of People v Crimmins (36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]), nothing more than the “sheerest technicality.” Because I believe that the other evidence of defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming, and the effect of admitting the cell phone location data not necessarily neutral, I dissent and would reverse the judgment of conviction. People v Perez, 2020 NY Slip Op 02684, Third Dept 5-7-20

 

/ ,

STANDARD PRACTICE OF USING THE SALE PROCEEDS TO PAY OFF THE EXISTING MORTGAGES ON THE SELLER’S PROPERTY AFTER THE CLOSING UPHELD BY THE MAJORITY; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE STANDARD PRACTICE VIOLATES THE TERMS OF THE STANDARD PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WHICH REQUIRES THE PROPERTY TO BE UNENCUMBERED AT THE CLOSING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff seller, over a partial dissent, determined the standard real estate purchase and sale contract incorporates the standard practice of using the sale proceeds to pay off any mortgages on the property, even though those liens are not removed until after the closing. The defendant argued the plaintiff’s failure to turn over the property free of the mortgages at the time of the closing was a breach of the explicit terms of the contract. The dissent agreed. The decision includes a detailed and comprehensive discussion of the standard purchase and sale agreement and the standard closing practice:

Defendant argues that plaintiff did not have a marketable title at closing, as she could only provide a marketable title, as required under the contract, by providing a satisfaction of each mortgage lien at closing. However, this position would necessarily have required plaintiff to pay off each mortgage in advance and secure each satisfaction, and, in our view, is inconsistent with both the contract and the conduct of the parties.

It is significant that the parties used a “Standard Form Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Estate” produced by the Capital Region Multiple Listing Service, Inc. … . Use of this standard form reflects the parties’ intent to embrace the common practice developed over the years in the real estate closing realm … . This common practice with respect to the existing mortgage liens is as follows — the seller obtains payoff letters from respective lenders, the purchaser brings corresponding bank checks to the closing payable to each lender, and either the title insurance agent or the seller’s counsel processes those payments to secure the required mortgage satisfaction … . Within 30 days of receipt of payment, the lenders are statutorily mandated to have a mortgage satisfaction “presented for recording to the recording officer of the county where the mortgage is recorded” (RPAPL 1921 [1] [a]). This protocol is consistent with the reality that the pertinent closing documents — the deed and the mortgage satisfactions — are recorded after the closing (see Real Property Law § 291). * * *

The concluding point is that defendant had documented assurance that the marketable title was being provided. Under these circumstances, we find that plaintiff duly performed under the contract. Defendant’s refusal to complete the transaction constituted a breach of contract. As such, Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. ​Prendergast v Swiencicky, 2020 NY Slip Op 02686, Third Dept 5-7-20

 

/ ,

THE NOTICES INFORMED DEFENDANTS THAT THE MORTGAGE PAYMENTS ACCELERATED ON JANUARY 21, 2011; THE FACT THAT NOTICES REITERATING THAT SAME ACCELERATION DATE WERE SENT AS LATE AS NOVEMBER 2013 DID NOT CHANGE THE OPERATIVE DATE; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED IN MARCH 2017 WAS TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage payments were accelerated on January 21, 2011. The defendants were notified of the acceleration date in December 2010. Additional notices were sent to defendants as late as November 2013, but all the notices reiterated that January 21, 2011 was the acceleration date. The foreclosure action commenced in March 2017 was deemed time-barred:

The December 2010 notice stated that, on January 21, 2011, “the mortgage payments will be accelerated with the full amount remaining accelerated and becoming due and payable in full, and foreclosure proceedings will be initiated at that time.” Between July 2012 and November 2013, five additional notices were sent to defendants, each reiterating that “[t]he acceleration date of January 21, 2011 . . . remains in effect.” * * *

… [T]he December 2010 notice states that, “[i]f the default is not cured on or before January 21, 2011, the mortgage payments will be accelerated with the full amount remaining accelerated and becoming due and payable in full, and foreclosure proceedings will be initiated at that time.” This language, particularly the underlined language in the notice, indicates the date on which the debt was to be accelerated. A plain reading of the notice does not provide any suggestion that, except for curing the default, the outstanding debt would not be accelerated on that date. As such, the notice clearly and unequivocally indicates that the outstanding mortgage payments would be accelerated on January 21, 2011 … . The reiteration of this acceleration date in five subsequent letters only further evinces the acceleration date of January 21, 2011 … . MTGLQ Invs., LLP v Lunder, 2020 NY Slip Op 02690, Third Dept 5-7-20

 

/

PETITION SIGNATURES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED ON THE GROUND THAT A VOTER’S ADDRESS ON THE PETITION WAS DIFFERENT FROM THAT VOTER’S ADDRESS ON THE VOTER REGISTRATION RECORD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petition signatures should not have been invalidated because a voter’s address on the petition differed from the address on a voter’s registration:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, “[t]hat the address appearing on a voter’s registration record differs from the address provided by that voter on the petition he or she signed does not provide a basis for invalidating that voter’s signature” … . It is undisputed that of the 15 voters whose signatures were invalidated on that ground, the respective addresses provided on the designating petition by 11 of those voters, and the addresses listed on their respective registration cards, though different, were all located within the 23rd Senatorial District. It is also undisputed that the signatures on the registration cards of those 11 voters matched their respective signatures on the designating petition. Matter of Robleto v Gowda, 2020 NY Slip Op 02745, Second Dept 5-7-20

 

/ ,

THE PETITION SIGNATURES WERE GATHERED BEFORE THE DEADLINE SET BY THE COVID-19-RELATED EXECUTIVE ORDER BUT THE SIGNATURES WERE WITNESSED AFTER THE DEADLINE; THE SIGNATURES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the witnessing of petition signatures need not be done prior to the deadline for gathering the signatures:

These are unusual times occasioned by the onset of the COVID-19 virus. The State has undertaken various measures to protect the health and safety of its residents by limiting the face-to-face contact of persons and thereby minimizing the extent of human transmission of the virus. Some of the State’s measures are set forth in Executive Orders of the Governor, including, as relevant here, Executive Order No. 202.2. Executive Order No. 202.2, dated March 14, 2020, modified article 6 of the Election Law to reduce the number of petition signatures required for placing candidates’ names on ballots, and to suspend the “gathering of signatures” after 5:00 p.m. on March 17, 2020. The Executive Order is consistent with the State’s policy of limiting social and professional interactions and community contact transmissions of COVID-19 (see Executive Order 202.2). …

The language of the Executive Order plainly directs that only the “gathering of signatures” was subject to the deadline of 5:00 p.m. on March 17, 2020. The signatures contained in the appellant’s designating petition were all “gathered” prior to that deadline. The language of the Executive Order provides no truncated deadline for the witnessing of those signatures. Indeed, since the witnessing of signatures is a ministerial task unrelated to the face-to-face interactions that Executive Order No. 202.2 was issued to minimize, there would be no reason for the Governor to have intended, or for the Executive Order itself to provide, that the witnessing of signatures also be suspended as of 5:00 p.m. on March 17, 2020.

Thus, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting the petition, inter alia, to invalidate the appellant’s designating petition on the ground that the executions of the Statement of Witness on March 19, 2020, violated the signature gathering deadline of Executive Order No. 202.2 … . Matter of Parascando v Monheit, 2020 NY Slip Op 02744, Second Dept 5-7-20

 

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