You are here: / PURCHASE AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW BUYERS TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT DURING...

Search Results

/ ,

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

 

/ , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S QUESTIONS WHETHER COMPLAINANTS HAD HIRED LAWYERS AND HAD SUED DEFENDANT-TEACHER AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS CHILD SEX ABUSE CASE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO ALL EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED PRIOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN, CONVICTION REVERSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN A READBACK OF TESTIMONY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in this child sex abuse prosecution, determined that the trial court should not have allowed the prosecution to present all evidence of defendant’s alleged prior sexual abuse of children after defense counsel asked complainants whether they had hired a lawyer and were suing the defendant-teacher and the school district based upon defendant’s alleged sexual abuse of children. Re-direct should have been limited to only the evidence necessary to clarify and explain the reasons for the witness’s hiring a lawyer and bringing a lawsuit. The Second Department also noted that the trial judge should have participated in the readback of testimony and the harmless error analysis is not applicable:

… [D]efense counsel asked questions regarding the civil actions in an attempt to impeach credibility and establish that a motivation for some of the complainants’ testimony against the defendant was monetary gain or a pecuniary interest. This line of inquiry did not open an unfettered passageway for the People to elicit extensive and prejudicial evidence regarding alleged uncharged complaints. The extraneous testimony of alleged uncharged complaints did not serve to explain or clarify whether the civil actions provided certain complainants with a financial incentive to testify.

Moreover, the admission of evidence of alleged uncharged complaints violated the basic principle underlying Molineux and its progeny that “a criminal case should be tried on the facts and not on the basis of a defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged …”. …

The Court of Appeals has explained that “if in any instance, an appellate court concludes that there has been such error of a trial court, such misconduct of a prosecutor, such inadequacy of defense counsel, or such other wrong as to have operated to deny any individual defendant his fundamental right to a fair trial, the reviewing court must reverse the conviction and grant a new trial, quite without regard to any evaluation as to whether the errors contributed to the defendant’s conviction” … . People v Watts, 2019 NY Slip Op 07426, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ ,

COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS TO INTERCEPT CELL PHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES SENT AND RECEIVED OUTSIDE NEW YORK STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants to intercept cell phone calls and text messages made and received outside New York State:

“[A]ny justice of the supreme court of the judicial district in which the eavesdropping warrant is to be executed” (CPL 700.05[4]) “may issue an eavesdropping warrant . . . upon ex parte application of an applicant who is authorized by law to investigate, prosecute or participate in the prosecution of the particular designated offense which is the subject of the application” (CPL 700.10[1]). Although the word “execute” is not defined in CPL article 700, the plain meaning of the word “execute” and the use of that word in relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Law reveal that an eavesdropping warrant is “executed” when a communication is intercepted by law enforcement officers, that is, when the communication is “intentionally overheard or recorded” by law enforcement officers (CPL 700.05[3][a]; see CPL 700.35[1]). Here, the eavesdropping warrants were executed in Kings County, New York, where the communications were intercepted by the New York City Police Department … . Therefore, under the applicable provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, had jurisdiction to issue the eavesdropping warrants.

Moreover, we reject the defendant’s argument that the eavesdropping warrants, which were authorized for the purpose of investigating crimes that were occurring in New York, constituted an unconstitutional extraterritorial application of New York State law … . People v Schneider, 2019 NY Slip Op 07424, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

/ , , ,

JUDGE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SEVER TWO COUNTS IN AN INDICTMENT AND REMOVE THE MATTER, INVOLVING A JUVENILE, TO FAMILY COURT; THE PEOPLE’S ARTICLE 78 SEEKING PROHIBITION DENIED AND DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department denied the People’s Article 78 action seeking to vacate an order by the respondent judge severing two counts which had been combined in an indictment and removing the charges to Family Court. The People objected to removing the prosecution of a 16-year-old to Family Court. In order the facilitate the removal, respondent judge severed the two counts. The People unsuccessfully argued the judged did not have the authority to sever the counts, and therefore could not send the charges to Family Court:

“[T]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where there is a clear legal right, and only when a court . . . acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction” … . “Use of the writ is, and must be, restricted so as to prevent incessant interruption of pending judicial proceedings by those seeking collateral review of adverse determinations made during the course of those proceedings” … .

There is no merit in the People’s contention that the court lacks the authority to sever charges that were joined in a single indictment. This argument would have validity in cases where charges were properly joinable in a single indictment. However, the law is clear that the determination of whether the charges were, in fact, properly joinable in the first instance, is a duty of the court that is not delegated to the prosecution or the grand jury.

The court has a duty to examine the indictment to determine whether joinder is proper pursuant to CPL 200.20(a) or (b). Notably, the People have not provided any precedent to support their position to the contrary. Courts routinely rule on the issue of whether charges in an indictment are properly joinable under CPL 200.20(2) and sever those charges that are not … .

While the People disagree with the court’s finding that the … charges were not properly joinable under CPL 200.20(2)(b), determination of this issue is not before us in this article 78 proceeding. Rather, we are only asked, and we only have the authority, to determine whether the court acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its authority. Matter of Vance v Roberts, 2019 NY Slip Op 07358, First Dept 10-10-19

 

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