You are here: / A LETTER INDICATING THE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED IF THE ARREARS WERE NOT...

Search Results

/ , ,

A LETTER INDICATING THE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED IF THE ARREARS WERE NOT PAID DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment contending the bank’s action was time barred and the bank failed to comply with RPAPL 1304 should have been denied. The 2010 letter from the bank which mentioned that the loan would be accelerated if the arreats were not paid did not serve to accelerate the debt. And defendant (Grella) did not demonstrate the bank failed to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

On or about December 12, 2010, the loan servicer sent Grella a notice of default which demanded payment of the arrears, and stated, in relevant part, that “[u]nless the payments on your loan can be brought current by January 11, 2011, it will become necessary to require immediate payment in full (also called acceleration) of your Mortgage Note. . . . If funds are not received by the above referenced date, we will proceed with acceleration.” Thereafter, the note and the mortgage were assigned to the plaintiff. …

Contrary to Grella’s contention, the language in the 2010 notice of default did not serve to accelerate the loan, as it “was nothing more than a letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, which does not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause” … . …

Here, as the moving party, Grella was required to affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . Grella failed to make such a showing.  HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Grella, 2019 NY Slip Op 07388, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ , , ,

STAY IMPOSED BY A SOUTH CAROLINA COURT AS PART OF THE LIQUIDATION OF A SOUTH CAROLINA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CARRIER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN A NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS INSURED BY THE INSOLVENT CARRIER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, determined that the stay imposed by a South Carolina court after the medical malpractice carrier, Oceanus, was declared insolvent and dissolved was not entitled to full faith and credit in the New York actions against parties insured by Oceanus. Oceanus was not a party to the New York actions, and due process trumped the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act (UILA). The opinion is comprehensive and the reasoning cannot be fairly summarized here:

Notwithstanding the goals of the UILA, for the reasons set forth herein, the principles of due process and the right of the plaintiffs to seek redress in the courts in New York for wrongs they allege occurred in New York mandate that the South Carolina order is not entitled to full faith and credit or comity by the courts in New York in this and the related actions. Hala v Orange Regional Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 07387, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ ,

FRENCH COMPANY WHICH MANUFACTURED ELEVATOR BRAKES FOR SALE TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over a French company (Warner Europe) which manufactured elevator brakes in this elevator-malfunction case. The French company sold the brakes to other companies which incorporated the brakes into their elevator A.C. drives:

Warner Europe established that it does not sell the elevator brakes it manufactures in France to any customers in New York or contract with any other company to distribute its elevator brakes to customers in New York. Instead, it sells its elevator brakes as component parts to other manufacturers which incorporate them into A.C. drives, which are then sold to other manufacturers that incorporate the A.C. drives containing the elevator brakes into elevator systems. Warner Europe also established that it has no knowledge of the end users of the elevator brakes, and that it does not sell replacement elevator brakes or component parts to the end-user customers who purchased the elevators into which they were incorporated. Warner Europe also established that its products were neither sold nor advertised online. Finally, Warner Europe showed that it has no real or personal property in New York, no registered agent or telephone number in New York, and no bank or investment account in New York, and that it does not advertise in New York. Thus, the record does not support a finding that Warner Europe knew or reasonably should have known that its manufacture and sale of elevator brakes would have a direct consequence in New York… such that long-arm jurisdiction could be exercised.

Moreover, the plaintiffs and the defendants that opposed Warner Europe’s motion to dismiss did not make a showing of a “sufficient start” to warrant the denial of the motion … . There is no basis to allow discovery to be conducted on the issue of personal jurisdiction since the opposing parties did not allege any facts which, if proven, would establish that Warner Europe may be subject to personal jurisdiction in New York … . Grandelli v Hope St. Holdings, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07386, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ ,

PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW BUYERS TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT DURING THE CONTINGENCY PERIOD, BUYERS’ ACTION TO RECOVER THE DOWN PAYMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the seller’s motion for summary judgment in this action by the buyers for return of the deposit was properly granted. The buyers purported to cancel the real estate purchase contract when the bank denied the mortgage application. But the purchase agreement did not allow the buyers to terminate the contract at that point:

Section 5.8 of the rider clearly and unambiguously provided that if the buyers were unable to obtain a mortgage commitment within 45 days of executing the contract, the seller had the unilateral right to either cancel the contract or extend the mortgage contingency period for an additional 30 days. The buyers were only entitled to cancel the contract upon the expiration of that 30-day period. Neither the rider nor the contract contained any provision permitting the buyers to cancel the contract during the mortgage contingency period upon receiving notice that their application had been denied … .

In opposition, the buyers failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The record does not support the buyers’ contention that their mortgage application was denied on the ground that the subject property constituted “unacceptable collateral,” and that, therefore, their performance under the contract was rendered impossible. Under these circumstances, the buyers willfully defaulted and anticipatorily breached the contract by purporting to cancel the contract during the mortgage contingency period. Federico v Dolitsky, 2019 NY Slip Op 07383, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ , ,

JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT; ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court was without authority to dismiss (sua sponte) the complaint in this foreclosure action because (1) issue had not been joined, and (2) there was no evidence plaintiff failed to appear at a conference:

CPLR 3216(b)(1) states that no dismissal should be made under this statute unless issue has been joined. “A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met”  … . Here, none of the defendants submitted an answer to the complaint and, thus, issue was never joined (see CPLR 3216[b][1] …). “Since at least one precondition set forth in CPLR 3216 was not met here, the Supreme Court was without power to dismiss the action pursuant to that statute” … . …

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, where, as here, a party “appeared as scheduled, [22 NYCRR 202.27] provides no basis for the court to summarily dismiss the action” for failure to prosecute … . In general, “[t]he procedural device of dismissing a complaint for undue delay is a legislative creation, and courts do not possess the inherent power to dismiss an action for general delay where the plaintiff has not been served with a 90-day demand to serve and file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216(b) … . Bank of N.Y. v Harper, 2019 NY Slip Op 07378, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE LOSS OF THE NOTE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient evidence concerning the allegedly lost note. The bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

Among the evidence offered by the plaintiff was a lost note affidavit, signed by a representative of Beneficial Homeowner Service Corporation (hereinafter Beneficial), the purported predecessor-in-interest to the plaintiff, stating that the note was deemed lost as of November 14, 2013, and that Beneficial was “in possession of the original Note prior to its whereabouts becoming undeterminable.” The evidence does not establish that the plaintiff was ever in physical possession of the subject note … .

The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate its ownership of the subject note by written assignment. The plaintiff submitted a document dated June 12, 2015, purporting to be a written assignment of the appellants’ mortgage and underlying note to the plaintiff by Beneficial, signed by Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter Caliber), as Beneficial’s “attorney in fact.” However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate as a matter of law the validity of the written assignment, because the plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence of Caliber’s authority to execute the assignment as Beneficial’s attorney-in-fact … . …

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, the facts that prevented production of the lost note … . The affidavit submitted by the plaintiff failed to identify who conducted the search for the lost note … , and failed to explain “when or how the note was lost” … , but instead described only approximately when the search for the note was conducted and when the loss was discovered, which was “on or about” the date the affidavit was executed.

In light of the plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the requirements of UCC 3-804, we need not reach the parties’ further contentions regarding the plaintiff’s standing to commence this action … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Rose, 2019 NY Slip Op 07440, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN INADMISSIBLE FORM AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE CONDITIONS IN THE MORTGAGE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the evidence submitted by defendant in this foreclosure action was either not in admissible form or did not comply with the requirements of the mortgage:

In support of those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and to appoint a referee, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Ocwen). The employee attested that she was familiar with business records of Ocwen but failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records concerning the defendant’s payment history and default. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon in the affidavit were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule … .

… [T]he defendant … failed to establish that the required notice of default was mailed by first class mail or actually delivered to the notice address if sent by other means, as required by paragraphs 15 and 22 of the mortgage. U.S. Bank N.A. v Kochhar, 2019 NY Slip Op 07439, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ , ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED BY DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted relief in this foreclosure action which was not requested by the defendant:

“The court may grant relief that is warranted pursuant to a general prayer for relief contained in a notice of motion if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, the defendants did not request an extension of time to answer, and the Supreme Court’s determination to, sua sponte, grant that relief was an improvident exercise of discretion. Indeed, to extend the time to answer the complaint, a defendant must generally provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . Here, the only excuse offered by the defendants for their default was the plaintiff’s alleged failure to properly serve them, which excuse was rejected by the Supreme Court. Further, the defendants did not proffer any potentially meritorious defense to the action. We note also that the court’s sua sponte determination to extend the time within which the defendants had to answer the complaint is fundamentally inconsistent with its determination to deny that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Since the judgment determined the action and the rights of the parties, allowing the defendants to interpose an answer was without practical import. U.S. Bank N.A. v Halevy, 2019 NY Slip Op 07438, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON PAINTED AREAS OF A CROSS-WALK IN DEFENDANT’S PARKING LOT; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PAINTED AREAS WERE SLIPPERY WHEN WET BECAUSE SAND HAD NOT BEEN ADDED TO THE PAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the painted areas of a cross-walk in a parking lot constituted a dangerous condition in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff’s expert presented evidence the painted areas were very slippery when wet and sand should have been added to the paint:

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the painted lines constituted a dangerous or defective condition … . The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of his expert, who opined that the painted surface was “non-slip” when dry, but became very slippery when wet. The plaintiff’s expert further opined that when coatings are applied in an area where people are expected to walk, particularly areas exposed to wet conditions, either sand is added to provide traction or a coating that is slip resistant under wet conditions is used. He also noted that in other areas of the parking lot where the accident occurred, a different coating was used, and that coating was slip resistant under wet conditions. Rojecki v Genting N.Y., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07431, Second Dept 10-2019

 

/ ,

POST-VERDICT INTEREST IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED AT THREE PERCENT PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the Public Authorities Law allows only three percent interest from the date of the verdict in this action against the New York City Transit Authority. Plaintiff was injured while driving when a piece of metal fell from elevated tracks through the windshield. The nearly two-million dollar verdict was affirmed:

After a trial on the issue of damages, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the principal sums of $800,000 for past pain and suffering and $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering over a 15-year period. The defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the total sum of $1,967,633.08, including interest in the sum of $64,249.90. * * *

… [T]he judgment incorrectly applied an interest rate in excess of the maximum legal rate of three percent per annum to the plaintiff’s award against the defendants (see Public Authorities Law § 1212[6] … ). We therefore remit the matter … for recalculation of interest at the rate of three percent per annum from the date of the verdict … . Rojas v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 07430, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

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