You are here: / FORECLOSURE ACTION ABANDONED, BANK FAILED TO INITIATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT...

Search Results

/ ,

FORECLOSURE ACTION ABANDONED, BANK FAILED TO INITIATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHIN ONE YEAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff bank had abandoned the foreclosure action by failure to move for a default judgment within one year. The bank’s participation in mandatory settlement conferences did not constitute the initiation of an action for a default judgment:

CPLR 3215(c) provides, in part, that if the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the defendant’s default, “the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion” … . “The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory, inasmuch as courts shall’ dismiss claims … for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one-year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned” … . However, the failure to timely seek a default judgment may be excused if “sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed” … . To establish sufficient cause as required by CPLR 3215(c), a plaintiff must proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay in timely moving for a default judgment and demonstrate that it has a potentially meritorious cause of action … .

… [A]fter this action was released from the mandatory foreclosure settlement conference part in July 2016, the plaintiff was authorized to proceed with the prosecution of this action. However, despite the fact that the appellants failed to answer or otherwise appear in the action after being served with process, the plaintiff took no steps to initiate proceedings for the entry of a default judgment against the appellants. The plaintiff’s participation in the mandatory foreclosure settlement part conferences did not constitute the initiation of proceedings for the entry of a default judgment. Moreover, more than one year passed from the time that the plaintiff was authorized to resume prosecution of this action prior to the appellants moving in October 2017 to dismiss the complaint as abandoned …. In light of the plaintiff’s failure to meet its burden to show sufficient cause why the complaint should not be dismissed as abandoned, it is not necessary to address the issue of whether the plaintiff demonstrated that it had a potentially meritorious cause of action … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Slone, 2019 NY Slip Op 05963, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

/

ADVERSE POSSESSION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS LAKE FRONT PROPERTY DISPUTE, THE USE OF THE LAND WAS PERMISSIVE, NOT HOSTILE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ adverse possession affirmative defense should have been granted. The disputed land is a so-called stub trail which allows access to a lake and which is owned by a third-party (Hillcrest). Defendants’ use and maintenance of the property was deemed permissive (i.e., not hostile) as the stub trails were to be used by all the property owners in the subdivision for lake access:

We agree with plaintiff that it met its initial burden on the cross motion of establishing as a matter of law that defendants’ use of the disputed property was not hostile and instead was permissive … , and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . The hostility element “is satisfied where an individual asserts a right to the property that is adverse to the title owner and also in opposition to the rights of the true owner’ ” … . ” Possession is hostile when it constitutes an actual invasion of or infringement upon the owner’s rights’ ” … . However, “[w]hen the entry upon land has been by permission or under some right or authority derived from the owner, adverse possession does not commence until such permission or authority has been repudiated and renounced and the possessor thereafter has assumed the attitude of hostility to any right in the real owner” … . “The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the unequivocal acts of the usurper’ ” … . …

The … deed demonstrated that defendants’ use of the disputed property was permissive pursuant to the terms of that deed, which allowed property owners around Rushford Lake to use the stub trail at issue that was owned by Hillcrest. The acts of defendants in mowing the lawn, removing weeds, adding fill to the area, and planting trees were fully consistent with the intent of the … deed, which was to allow property owners to use the trails and stub trails and improve them when needed. The acts of defendants did not give Hillcrest a cause of action in ejectment inasmuch as Hillcrest was required under the terms of the deed to allow property owners such as defendants to use and maintain the trail … . Parklands E., LLC v Spangenberg, 2019 NY Slip Op 05849, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/ ,

DAY CARE CENTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant day care center’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case was properly denied. The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured while in the care of the day care center. The facts were not described:

The defendant, as a provider of day care services, was under a duty to adequately supervise the children in its charge and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . “A plaintiff is not required to exclude every other possible cause, but need only offer evidence from which proximate cause may be reasonably inferred. [The p]laintiff’s burden of proof on this issue is satisfied if the possibility of another explanation for the event is sufficiently remote or technical to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the infant plaintiff’s injuries were not proximately caused by its negligence. The defendant’s submissions failed to negate a reasonable inference that the injury occurred at the defendant’s day care center and that the defendant failed to provide adequate supervision … . A.D.G. v Children’s Ark Daycare Ctr., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05959, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

/ ,

THE VICTIM IN THIS KIDNAPPING CASE ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE COULD GO WITH HIM TO FLORIDA; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED THAT THE INTENT TO VIOLATE OR ABUSE THE VICTIM MUST HAVE EXISTED FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS, A NEW TRIAL WAS ORDERED ON THAT GROUND; BOTH THE CONCURRENCE AND THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE HAD BEEN NO RESTRAINT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KIDNAPPING STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a concurrence and a dissent, determined the jury instruction on the intent element of kidnapping was wrong requiring reversal. Defendant, who was over 21, drove to Florida with the victim, who was 14, and had sex with her during the trip. The victim asked defendant if she could come with him and snuck out of the house without her mother’s knowledge. The concurrence argued the restraint element of kidnapping was not proven, but agreed with the majority because that element had been conceded by the defense. The dissent would have reversed and dismissed the indictment, finding the conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he weight of the evidence supports a determination that defendant did not innocently acquiesce to the mere request of a 14-year-old acquaintance to drive her to Florida, but rather took advantage of a 14-year-old child’s age and inexperience, by driving the victim across multiple state lines, away from her family, in order to engage in an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. * * *

We interpret the statute to mean that kidnapping in the first degree requires that a defendant both restrain a victim for more than 12 hours and possess, for more than 12 hours during the period of restraint, the intent to violate or abuse the victim sexually. Here, however, the court instructed the jury that “intent does not require advanced planning, nor is it necessary that the intent be in the person’s mind for any particular period of time.” … [W]e conclude that the instruction was erroneous inasmuch as it permitted the jury to find that the element of intent pursuant to section 135.25 (2) (a) had been established even if the jury did not find that the intent existed for more than 12 hours during a period of over 12 hours of restraint.  * * *

FROM THE DISSENT: Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that defendant either “secreted” or “held” the victim in his car, or that he intended to prevent her “liberation.” She was there voluntarily and of her own accord, which is the very antithesis of being “secreted” or “held” somewhere. People v Vail, 2019 NY Slip Op 05848, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/ , ,

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY THAT DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE APPEARED TO BE INTOXICATED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S RELIABILITY AS A WITNESS AND COULD PROPERLY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the defense verdict in this traffic accident case should have been granted. There was sharply conflicting testimony about how the accident happened and whether defendant fled the scene. A witness, Stephen, who allegedly chased defendant down after the accident was not allowed to testify that defendant appeared to be intoxicated:

We agree with plaintiffs that the court erred in excluding Stephen’s testimony that defendant exhibited indicia of intoxication during their interaction immediately after the accident and that, in his opinion, she was intoxicated. Although defendant’s failure to remain at the scene meant that Stephen was the only witness who had an opportunity to observe defendant and interact with her after the accident, the court prohibited Stephen from testifying about his observations of defendant on the ground that he was not an “expert” in signs of intoxication. Contrary to the court’s ruling, it is well settled that a lay witness may testify regarding his or her observation that another individual exhibited signs of intoxication … , and also regarding his or her opinion that another individual was intoxicated … . …

… [P]laintiffs should have been permitted to present Stephen’s testimony with respect to whether defendant appeared to be intoxicated, which would allow the jury to consider whether and to what degree alcohol impaired defendant’s senses and her ability to accurately perceive and recall the events about which she testified at trial. …

… Stephen’s proposed testimony regarding his observations of defendant, i.e., that she fumbled with her license, slurred her speech, and smelled of alcohol, was not cumulative of other evidence already before the jury … . …

Defendant testified that she did not fumble with her license, her speech was not slurred, she did not recall her eyes being “glassy,” and there was no alcohol on her breath. Thus, the excluded testimony from Stephen would have provided ” evidence in denial of some affirmative fact which [defendant] has endeavored to prove’ ” … and therefore fell within the scope of permissible rebuttal evidence.  Brooks v Blanchard, 2019 NY Slip Op 05847, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/ , ,

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF APPEALS COULD NOT PURSUE STATE WAGE CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN WHICH THE STATE WAGE CLAIMS WERE RELEASED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined that the Commissioner of Labor and the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) were bound by the federal district court’s release in a class action alleging failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages and unlawful deductions. The IBA had awarded two members of the class state wage claims together with interest and penalties:

Procedurally, IBA erred in entertaining this issue. In the final approval order, the District Court clearly and unmistakably retained exclusive and continuing subject matter jurisdiction of the Stewart class action “for the purposes of supervising the implementation, effectuation, enforcement, construction, administration and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and this Judgment.” Undoubtedly, the District Court “has the power to enforce an ongoing order against relitigation so as to protect the integrity of a complex class settlement over which it retained jurisdiction” … . … * * *

Because we have determined that claimants have released their dual wage claims, the focus now necessarily concerns the concept of privity, and whether it exists between claimants and respondents [Commissioner of Labor, et al]. We find that the holding in Applied Card Sys., Inc. (11 NY3d at 124) is dispositive of this issue.

The Applied Card Court addressed whether the state Attorney General was precluded under the doctrine of res judicata from pursuing on the class members’ behalf their restitution claims released in an underlying class action settlement. The Court held that because the Attorney General was pursuing claims identical to the ones that had been released that fact alone established privity … . The facts herein are virtually indistinguishable from Applied Card. Here, respondents, on behalf of claimants, seek to pursue their released dual wage claims. As such, privity has been established between claimants and respondents. Matter of Silvar v Commissioner of Labor of the State of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 05841, First Dept 7-30-19

 

/ ,

HANDGUN FOUND IN A COAT IN A CLOSET BY A PAROLE OFFICER WITH A PAROLE ABSCONDER WARRANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the suppression court in an appeal by the People, determined the handgun found during a search of defendant’s bedroom pursuant to a parole warrant should not have been suppressed. The parole officer testified she was searching a closet to see if defendant was hiding there when she felt a handgun in the pocket of a jacket she had seen defendant wearing:

In Huntley, the Court of Appeals “relied on the dual nature of a parole officer’s duties and a parolee’s reduced expectation of privacy to hold that a parolee’s constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a parole officer conducts a warrantless search that is rationally and reasonably related to the performance of the parole officer’s duties” (… see Huntley, 43 NY2d at 179, 181 …). “It would not be enough necessarily that there was some rational connection; the particular conduct must also have been substantially related to the performance of duty in the particular circumstances” … .

Applying this standard, we find that Parole Officer Williams, whose testimony the hearing court credited, acted lawfully in retrieving the firearm from defendant’s jacket pocket. While executing a valid parole warrant, and in the course of searching for defendant pursuant to that warrant, Williams inadvertently felt an object, that both she and her supervisor believed to be a gun, in the jacket pocket. Because parolees are not permitted to possess firearms, Williams’s discovery meant that defendant was in further violation of the conditions of his supervised release. Thus, the minimally invasive step of retrieving the gun from the pocket was “rationally and reasonably related to the performance of [her] duty as [defendant’s] parole officer” … . People v Jennings, 2019 NY Slip Op 05838, First Dept 7-30-19

 

/ , ,

DOCTOR’S REPORTING PLAINTIFFS’ CHILD’S INJURIES TO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES IS PROTECTED BY THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY PROVISION IN THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s (Bludorn’s) and hospital’s motion for summary judgment in this defamation case should have been granted. The injury to plaintiffs’ child had been reported to Child Protective Services which ultimately determined the report to be unfounded:

Social Services Law § 413 requires certain individuals, including physicians like Bludorn, to make a child protective report whenever “they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is an abused or maltreated child.” Where these mandated reporters discharge their reporting duties in good faith, they are accorded qualified immunity from civil liability (see Social Services Law § 419). A mandated reporter’s good faith “shall be presumed, provided [that] such person . . . was acting in the discharge of [his or her] duties and within the scope of [his or her] employment, and . . . such liability did not result from the willful misconduct or gross negligence of such person” … . “The reporting requirements [that] trigger the qualified immunity provision in Social Services Law § 419 are not predicated upon actual or conclusive proof of abuse or maltreatment. Rather, immunity attaches when there is reasonable cause to suspect that the infant might have been abused and when the party so reporting has acted in good faith in discharging the obligations and duties imposed by the statute” … . …

The child’s medical records and the social worker’s written assessment confirmed that plaintiffs had expressed uncertainty as to what had caused the child’s skull fracture and that they had offered two different possible explanations, both of which involved incidents that had occurred several days before they sought medical treatment for the child. Bludorn averred that he made the child protective report in good faith and that, in so reporting, he had no intent other than discharging his statutory duties under Social Services Law § 413 and protecting the interests of his patient. Hunter v Lourdes Hosp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05831, Third Dept 7-25-19

 

/ ,

CLAIMANT’S RECEIPT OF STRIKE BENEFITS DID NOT DISQUALIFY HIM FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was receiving strike benefits which did not disqualify him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits:

… [I]t is well settled that “whether a claimant is totally unemployed for purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits is a factual issue for the Board and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … . The receipt of remuneration has been found to be indicative of a lack of total unemployment … . However, “[u]nder 12 NYCRR 490.2 (b), strike benefits paid by labor unions to their members are not considered remuneration within the meaning of the [u]nemployment [i]nsurance [l]aw so long as the payments are not conditioned upon the rendering of services to the union” … . Thus, the dispositive issue is whether the monies received by claimants from the IBT and Local 812 constituted strike benefits under 12 NYCRR 490.2 (b). Matter of Bebbino (Clare Rose Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2019 NY Slip Op 05818, Third Dept 7-25-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS ENTERED VOLUNTARILY AND WHETHER HE RECEIVED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant presented DNA evidence of a genetic inability to metabolize certain medications he was taking to address his mental health. In addition, defendant raised issues concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel, who was aware of defendant’s mental health issues, had sent a letter to the court requesting to withdraw as counsel immediately after defendant told the court he felt coerced into pleading guilty. Three days later defendant entered a guilty plea saying he was not coerced. The court noted that the DNA evidence submitted by the defendant was not the kind of DNA evidence (i.e., demonstrating innocence) which can be used as the basis of a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction:

Given the evidence of defendant’s metabolic deficiency and the ongoing efforts to chemically treat his mental health issues before and after his guilty plea, further development of the record is required to determine whether defendant’s mental capacity was impaired at the time of his plea and, if so, whether he was able to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently plead guilty to attempted murder in the second degree … . …

… [D]efense counsel stated to defendant on multiple occasions that he had “absolutely no defense” to the charged crimes. In our view, defendant’s submissions demonstrate the need for further development of the record regarding off-the-record conversations that took place between defendant and defense counsel regarding defendant’s case and possible defenses, … so as to discern whether defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived any potential defenses, including an involuntary intoxication defense or the defense of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect … .

… [D]efense counsel stated, among other things, that, should defendant refuse to plead guilty, he would no longer agree to represent defendant and, in attempting to dissuade defendant from proceeding to trial, invoked the potential disgrace to his family. People v Adamo, 2019 NY Slip Op 05813, Third Dept 7-25-19

 

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