You are here: / BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT DID NOT DECIDE A MOTION MADE...

Search Results

/0 Comments/ , ,

BECAUSE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT DID NOT DECIDE A MOTION MADE ON NOTICE, THE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT; THEREFORE, A MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPRL 2221(A) IS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal order in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The order dismissing the complaint was not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice. Therefore a motion to vacate the dismissal pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) was proper and should have been granted:

The Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar. A motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) is not subject to any specific time limitation … . Where, as here, an order directing dismissal of a complaint is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice, it is procedurally proper for the aggrieved party to move pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate that order … .

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed” … . Here, CPLR 3215(c) is not applicable to the defendant under the circumstances of this case, as she appeared in the action by answer … . “Further, this action does not present an extraordinary circumstance as would warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint” … . US Bank N.A. v Jones-Boakai, 2026 NY Slip Op 03019, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: If an order dismissing a complaint is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice, a motion to vacate the dismissal pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) is proper.​

 

/0 Comments/ ,

THE ONLY ACTION PLAINTIFF TOOK WITHIN A YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE WAS TO REQUEST A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; BUT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT RESIDE AT THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE; SINCE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN TO ENTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR, THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment within one year requiring dismissal of the complaint. Although plaintiff did request a settlement conference within one year, the settlement conference was not required because the defendant did not reside at the property subject to foreclosure:

… [P]laintiff had one year from July 17, 2012, to take proceedings for the entry of judgment against the defendant (see CPLR 3215[c] …). However, the plaintiff did not take such proceedings until over two years later, when it moved, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference in March 2015. Thus, the plaintiff failed to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the defendant’s default. Although the plaintiff filed a request for judicial intervention requesting a foreclosure settlement conference within the one-year period after the defendant’s default, a settlement conference was not required in this case because the defendant did not reside at the property subject to foreclosure (see CPLR 3408[a][1]). As such, the filing of the request for judicial intervention did not constitute the taking of proceedings for the entry of a judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) and did not toll the one-year deadline to do so … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Islam, 2026 NY Slip Op 03015, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Requesting a settlement conference which is not required does not toll the one-year period for taking proceedings to enter a default judgment in a foreclosure action.

 

/0 Comments/ ,

A PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY); BUT A PRIOR PROPERTY OWNER CANNOT BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6) FOR CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a prior owner of property may be liable pursuant to Labor Law 200 and common law negligence for a dangerous condition which the new owner did not have time to remedy, but prior owners cannot be liable under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) which relate to construction activities:

… Supreme Court properly denied those branches of Federal Brick’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it to the extent that they sounded in premises liability. … Federal Brick failed to establish, prima facie, that it could not be held liable for the allegedly dangerous premises condition as a former owner. Inasmuch as “Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of property owners and general contractors to provide workers with a safe place to work” … .

… T]he “narrow exception” that allows for premises liability to be extended to prior owners of property … does not apply to the statutory liability imposed by Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Those statutes apply to certain construction-related activities … , rather than premises conditions for which a prior owner might remain responsible. Quintero v MBH Capital, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03010, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Under some circumstances a prior property owner may be liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition if the new owner has not yet had time to learn of it and remedy it. This prior-owner liability may be pursunat Labor-Law-200 and common-law negligence theories.

 

/0 Comments/ , ,

AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP, THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S AUTOMOBILE FOR EVIDENCE OF DWI; DURING THE SEARCH THE POLICE OPENED A CLOSED BOX AND DISCOVERED A FIREARM; REVERSING SUPREME COURT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH FOR ALCOHOL IN THE CLOSED BOX (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court on the People’s appeal, determined the police, after a traffic stop, had probable cause to search the defendant’s car for evidence of DWI. The police therefore had probable cause to open a closed box which could have contained alcohol, but in fact contained a firearm:

… Supreme Court credited the officers’ testimony that the defendant apparently had been drinking, and those factual findings and credibility determinations are entitled to great deference on appeal … . Thus, the police had probable cause to search the vehicle for evidence of the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a misdemeanor.

“If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search” … , which may include closed containers … “found therein in which there was probable cause to believe that the [contraband] may be found” … .

The scope of a warrantless search of a vehicle is defined not by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted, but by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found … . The relevant inquiry here is not whether the cardboard box could physically hold an open container of alcohol, but whether there was reason to believe that it did … .

Here the cardboard box containing the gun was unsealed and heavy, indicating it was not empty. Further the defendant moved his hands under the seat when he was stopped, indicating he may have been secreting contraband in the box. The issue was whether that search could extend to the cardboard box. The label on the box stating that it originally contained “lithium battery portable power station” was not particularly significant since the box was not new, was unsealed, and was of a size and shape that could store a variety of objects, including an alcohol bottle or a gun.  People v Perry, 2026 NY Slip Op 03005, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Upon a traffic stop, evidence the driver had been drinking authorized a warrantless search of every part of the car for alcohol. Because there was reason to believe a closed box could contain alcohol, the police were authorized to search the box and seize the firearm inside.

 

/0 Comments/ , ,

IF A DEFENDANT CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY OF HIS ARREST, THE PEOPLE MUST PROVE THE ARREST WAS BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE; THE ISSUANCE OF AN I-CARD DEMONSTRATING PROBABLE CAUSE IS NOT, BY ITSELF, ENOUGH; THERE MUST BE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DEMONSTRATING THE ARREST WAS IN FACT BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN THE I-CARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress his statements, determined the People did not prove the legality of defendant’s arrest at the suppression hearing. An I-card demonstrating probable cause for defendant’s arrest had been issued by the police two months before the arrest. But no one testified that the arrest was based upon the information in the I-card:

At a suppression hearing, a detective testified that he had generated still images and wanted flyers from a video of the alleged robbery, circulated the still images and wanted flyers throughout the police department, and activated an I-card for the defendant’s arrest, and that the defendant was apprehended by the Queens Warrant Squad nearly two months later. The arresting officers did not testify at the suppression hearing, nor did the detective testify about the circumstances of the arrest. After the hearing, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. The defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the first degree. The defendant appeals.

When a defendant challenges the admission of statements he or she has made, claiming they are the product of an illegal arrest, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance … . Under the fellow officer rule, a police officer can make a lawful arrest even without personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, so long as the officer is acting upon the direction of an officer in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest … .

Here, the People failed to present evidence sufficient to establish that the arresting officers stopped and arrested the defendant on probable cause allegedly communicated by the I-card … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the issuance of an I-card nearly two months before the defendant’s arrest, standing alone, was insufficient to establish that the officers who stopped and detained the defendant were actually acting upon the direction of an officer in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause … . People v Moreno, 2026 NY Slip Op 03004, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: The existence of an I-card does not, by itself, demonstrate an arrest was based on probable cause. There must be testimony by the arresting officer that the arrest was, in fact, based upon the information in the I-card.

 

/0 Comments/ , , ,

EVEN IF DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, THE JUDGE SO INFORMED HIM AND HE ACKNOWEDGED THE CONSEQUENCES ON THE RECORD; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO SHOW HE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea on ineffective assistance grounds should have been denied. Even if defense counsel had failed to inform defendant of the deportation-consequences of his guilty plea, the defendant was made aware of them by the judge:

The defendant failed to establish, sufficiently to warrant an evidentiary hearing, that his counsel’s allegedly deficient advice deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel under either the federal or state constitutional standards … . It is clear from the record of the plea proceeding that prior to accepting the plea, the court advised the defendant that he may be subject to deportation as a result of his plea of guilty. The defendant acknowledged his understanding thereof and confirmed that he wished to plead guilty. Under the circumstances of this case, even if defense counsel had failed to advise the defendant of the possible immigration consequences of pleading guilty, the defendant was indisputably aware of those possible consequences before he entered his favorable plea … . Accordingly, the defendant cannot show prejudice resulting from defense counsel’s alleged failure to provide that advice himself … , and there is no reasonable probability that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty but for defense counsel’s alleged deficiency … .  People v Lewis, 2026 NY Slip Op 03001, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Here defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea based upon ineffective assistance of counsel should have been denied without a hearing. Even if defense counsel was ineffective in failing to inform defendant of the deportation consequences of his plea, defendant was not prejudiced because the judge so informed him.

 

/0 Comments/ , ,

THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FILED A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE WHICH WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating the judgment of foreclosure, determined that the defendant’s (the Church’s) attorney’s filing of a notice of appearance waived any objection to personal jurisdiction:

CPLR 5015(a)(4) provides in relevant part that “[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person . . . upon the ground of . . . lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order.” Under CPLR 5015(a)(4), a default must be vacated once lack of personal jurisdiction has been established … . “[T]he filing of a notice of appearance in an action by a party’s counsel serves as a waiver of any objection to personal jurisdiction in the absence of either the service of an answer which raises a jurisdictional objection, or a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction” … . Here, since it is undisputed that Goodman filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the Church and that the Church failed, at that time, to file an answer raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction or to make a pre-answer motion to dismiss on that ground, the Church waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction … . There is no merit to the Church’s contention that a notice of appearance that is untimely filed does not confer personal jurisdiction over a defendant … . NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v Grace Christian Church, 2026 NY Slip Op 02995, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: A notice of appearance by defendant’s attorney which is accepted by plaintiff, even if the notice is “late,” waives any objection to personal jurisdiction.

 

/0 Comments/ , , ,

UPON THE PRIOR APPEAL, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT MADE A FINDING THAT RESPONDENT SUFFERED FROM SEXUAL SADISM DISORDER AND REMITTED THE MATTER; SUPREME COURT IGNORED THE FINDING AND HELD A NEW NONJURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE THE SECOND DEPARTMENT’S MANDATE (SECOND DEPT).​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court improperly ignored the terms of the Second Department’s remittitur. On the prior appeal, the Second Department held that the petitioner had proven respondent suffered from sexual sadism disorder. On remittal, however, Supreme Court held a new nonjury trial on all issues, including whether respondent suffered from sexual sadism disorder:

“A trial court, upon remittitur, lacks the power to deviate from the mandate of the higher court” … . Therefore, “an order or judgment entered on remittitur ‘must conform strictly to the remittitur'” … .

Here, as the determination of this Court in the January 2024 order is binding upon the Supreme Court … , the Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, holding a nonjury trial on all issues and redetermining issues already determined by this Court … . Accordingly, the first May 2025 order must be reversed, and we remit the matter again to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial and determination as to whether the respondent’s diagnoses of ASPD, psychopathy, and sexual sadism disorder are sufficient to find that the respondent suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) … , and a dispositional hearing, if appropriate … . Matter of State of New York v Ezikiel R., 2026 NY Slip Op 02987, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: A trial court cannot deviate from the mandate of a higher court. Here the appellate court’s finding was ignored by Supreme Court upon remittal, requiring reversal and another remittal.

 

/0 Comments/ , ,

AFTER PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHDREW, THE JUDGE SET A DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR WITH NEW COUNSEL; WHEN THE DEADLINE PASSED, THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT; THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY FOR THE “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge did not have the authority to, sua sponte, dismiss the complaint when plaintiff missed the court’s deadline for finding new counsel:

… [C]ounsel … moved for leave to withdraw as the plaintiff’s counsel. … Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the motion and directed that should the plaintiff fail to retain counsel by February 1, 2023, the complaint would be dismissed. Thereafter, in an order dated February 8, 2023, the court, upon the conditional order, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff appeals.

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint sua sponte is to be used sparingly, and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant such a dismissal” … . Here, the Supreme Court was without authority, either pursuant to CPLR 3216 or 22 NYCRR 202.27 … , to direct dismissal of the complaint … . Under these circumstances, the court improperly, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint .. . Dowd v Tischler, 2026 NY Slip Op 02968, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: Appellate courts don’t like “sua sponte” dismissals of complaints.

 

/0 Comments/ ,

RPAPL 1301, WHICH PROHIBITS SIMULTANEOUS ACTIONS AT LAW TO RECOVER ON A NOTE AND ACTIONS IN EQUITY TO FORECLOSE A MORTGAGE, DOES NOT APPLY TO OUT-OF-STATE PROPERTIES; RPAPL 1371 DOES NOT APPLY TO OUT-OF-STATE FORECLOSURES AND THEREFORE DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS TO DEEM A JUDGMENT SATISFIED UPON A FORECLOSURE SALE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that RPAPL 1301 and 1371 do not apply to out-of-state foreclosures:

The motion court properly rejected defendants’ position that RPAPL 1301 was a ground to deny plaintiff’s motion. That section “prohibits a mortgage lender seeking repayment of a loan from simultaneously prosecuting an action at law to recover upon a promissory note and an action in equity to foreclose the mortgage” … . However, RPAPL 1301 does not apply “where, as here, the property securing the loan is located outside of New York State” … . This is the case even though the parties in their loan documents agreed that New York law would govern any disputes arising from the agreements.

Similarly, RPAPL 1371 does not apply to out-of-state foreclosures and therefore does not provide a basis to deem the judgment against defendants satisfied upon the foreclosure sale of the properties … . Thus, defendants’ motion seeking an order deeming the judgment satisfied because plaintiff failed to move for a deficiency judgment after the out-of-state properties were foreclosed upon and sold was also properly denied. WPC Billboard Lender LLC v Bartkowski, 2026 NY Slip Op 02951, First Dept 5-12-26

 

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