You are here: / IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION THE MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING...

Search Results

/ , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION THE MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH PROOF MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff mortgage company did not demonstrate standing with proof meeting the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Melissa Black, an employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, who alleged, based upon a review of business records maintained by the loan servicer, that the plaintiff had been “in continuous possession of the note and mortgage since June 26, 2007.” However, because Black did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Black were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a] … ). In any event, the submissions by the plaintiff of different copies of the note raise a triable issue of fact, inter alia, as to whether the note was assigned to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action … . EMC Mtge. Corp. v Tinari, 2019 NY Slip Op 01392, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/ , ,

CITY, AS THE OWNER OF THE MARINA WITH RIPARIAN RIGHTS, WAS ENTITLED TO EJECT DEFENDANTS WHO WERE USING AN INOPERABLE VESSEL AS A HOUSEBOAT DOCKED AT THE MARINA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the city should have been granted summary judgment in this ejectment proceeding. The defendants were using an inoperable vessel as a houseboat docked at a city marina:

To demonstrate entitlement to judgment on a cause of action for ejectment, a plaintiff must establish “(1) it is the owner of an estate in tangible real property, (2) with a present or immediate right to possession thereof, and (3) the defendant is in present possession of the estate” … . “The owner of uplands on a tidal, navigable waterway possesses riparian rights” which include the right to build a pier, dock, or wharf … .

Here, the City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to its first cause of action, for ejectment, by demonstrating that it is the owner of the subject slip … , with a present or immediate right to possession thereof … , and that the defendants are in possession of that property. City of New York v Anton, 2019 NY Slip Op 01389, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY, AND THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this slip and fall case was entitled to severance of the action against the property owner, Pathmark (supermarket), which filed for bankruptcy, from the action against the snow removal contractor, Peterman:

The supermarket defendants filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief, resulting in an automatic stay pursuant to 11 USC § 362(a). However, the automatic stay provisions of 11 USC § 362(a) did not extend to the nonbankrupt Peterman … . “Generally, the balance of the equities lies with plaintiff[ ] when severance is sought because the case against one defendant is stayed pursuant to 11 USC § 362(a), and that is particularly so in this personal injury action where a delay would be prejudicial to the plaintiff[ ]” … .

The supermarket defendants are subject to a $750,000 self-insured retention, which would make a lifting of the bankruptcy stay less likely. As the prejudice to the plaintiff in being required to await the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceeding before obtaining any remedy outweighs any potential inconvenience to Peterman, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 603 to sever the action insofar as asserted against the supermarket defendants from the action insofar as asserted against Peterman … . Vogric v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01447, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/ , ,

PROOF OF MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT MET, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient proof of compliance with the notice requirements in Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Sherry Benight, an officer of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (hereinafter SPS), stating that her review of records maintained by SPS revealed that a “[ninety-day pre-foreclosure notice] dated September 13, 2012, . . . was sent to Borrower(s) by certified and first class mail.” A copy of the notice to Fisher was annexed to Benight’s affidavit, which contained a bar code with a 20-digit number below it, but no language indicating that a mailing was done by first-class or certified mail, or even that a mailing was done by the U.S. Postal Service … . Further, Benight did not make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Fisher, 2019 NY Slip Op 01444, Second Dept 2-27-19

Similar issues and result in US Bank N.A. v Rode, 2019 NY Slip Op 01446, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT SOLE SHAREHOLDER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION AGAINST HIM PREMISED UPON PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE VIOLATED AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS STRIPPED OF ASSETS SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendant Brookstein, the sole shareholder of corporate defendant DKM, was not entitled to summary judgment in the action against him based upon piercing the corporate veil:

“The general rule, of course, is that a corporation exists independently of its owners, who are not personally liable for its obligations, and that individuals may incorporate for the express purpose of limiting their liability… . The concept of piercing the corporate veil is an exception to this general rule, permitting, in certain circumstances, the imposition of personal liability on owners for the obligations of their corporation … . A plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must demonstrate that a court in equity should intervene because the owners of the corporation exercised complete domination over [the corporation] in the transaction at issue and, in doing so, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form, thereby perpetrating a wrong that resulted in injury to the plaintiff … .

A plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil bears a heavy burden… . “Veil-piercing is a fact-laden claim that is not well suited for summary judgment resolution” … .

Here, Brookstein did not establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. It is undisputed that Brookstein dissolved DKM without making any reserves for contingent liabilities, despite the existence of a provision in the contract of sale pursuant to which DKM agreed to indemnify [plaintiff] for any breach of warranty for a period of 7½ years after the closing of the sale. This factor was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Brookstein stripped the corporation of assets, leaving DKM without sufficient funds to pay its contractual contingent liabilities … . Town-Line Car Wash, Inc. v Don’s Kleen Mach. Kar Wash, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01443, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/ , , ,

MOTION TO DISMISS THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RULE OUT LIABILITY BASED UPON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND THE COMPANY PROVIDING SECURITY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant security company’s motion to dismiss the complaint should not have been granted in this third party assault case. The complaint alleged the security company’s negligence resulted in the murder of plaintiff’s decedent at an assisted living facility. The defendant alleged it did not provide security there at the time of the murder. However, the documentary evidence submitted by defendant did not rule out the possibility the defendant company could be liable based upon its relationship with the company which was providing security at the time of the murder:

Generally, “a corporation which acquires the assets of another is not liable for the torts of its predecessor”… . However, such liability may arise if the successor corporation expressly or impliedly assumed the predecessor’s tort liability, there was a consolidation or merger of seller and purchaser, the purchaser corporation was a mere continuation of the seller corporation, or the transaction was entered into fraudulently to escape such obligations… .

Moreover, “[w]here, as here, evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) . . . the motion should not be granted unless the movant can show that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it”… . ” Accordingly, consideration of such evidentiary materials will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) unless the materials establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no [claim or] cause of action'”… .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the documentary and affidavit evidence submitted by USSA in support of its motion failed to conclusively establish that the plaintiff had no cause of action against it. More particularly, that evidence failed to demonstrate that the exceptions to the general rule of a successor corporation’s nonliability where there was a de facto merger between the purchaser and the seller, or where the purchaser is a mere continuation of the seller, do not apply to this case … . Shea v Salvation Army, 2019 NY Slip Op 01441, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO PERMISSIVE ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION BASED UPON THE PEOPLE’S LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the permissive adverse inference jury instruction should have been given because of the loss or destruction of evidence requested by the defendant:

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court should have granted his request for a permissive adverse inference charge with respect to the People’s failure to turn over duly requested tape recordings and any other police records related to taped interactions between the undercover officer and a witness to the March 4, 1998, sale, who was also the defendant’s unindicted co-defendant. ” A permissive adverse inference instruction typically serves as either: (1) a penalty for the government’s violation of its statutory and constitutional duties or its destruction of material evidence; or (2) an explanation of logical inferences that may be drawn regarding the government’s motives for failing to present certain evidence at trial'” …

We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court should have granted his request for a permissive adverse inference charge based upon the People’s loss or destruction of the material requested by the defendant … . “[A] permissive adverse inference charge should be given where a defendant, using reasonable diligence, has requested evidence reasonably likely to be material, and where that evidence has been destroyed by agents of the State”… . Although the prosecutor stated that the missing tapes were unrelated to the sales at issue and were not recorded on the dates of the buys, he concededly never listened to them. Additionally, the officer who relayed the information that the tapes were not recorded on the dates of the buys to the prosecutor did not testify at trial. People v Torres, 2019 NY Slip Op 01434, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/ ,

TRIAL COURT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT FINDING DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE LESSER COUNTS, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, noted that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that finding the defendant not guilty of the top count (attempted murder) based upon the justification defense would preclude consideration of the lesser counts. Defendant was acquitted of attempted murder but found guilty of assault first:

… [T]he Supreme Court’s jury charge in conjunction with the verdict sheet failed to adequately convey to the jury that if it found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder in the second degree based on justification, then “it should simply render a verdict of acquittal and cease deliberation, without regard to” assault in the first degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree … . Thus, the court’s instructions, together with the verdict sheet, may have led the jurors to conclude that deliberation on each of the three counts required reconsideration of the justification defense, even if they had already acquitted the defendant of attempted murder in the second degree based on justification … . Since we cannot say with any certainty and there is no way of knowing whether the acquittal on attempted murder in the second degree was based on a finding of justification, a new trial is necessary… . In light of the defendant’s acquittal on the charge of attempted murder in the second degree, the highest offense for which the defendant may be retried is assault in the first degree … . People v Rosario, 2019 NY Slip Op 01432, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/ ,

DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny defendant youthful offender status:

The evidence demonstrated that the defendant, who was only 18 years old when he participated in the subject robbery and had spent nearly two years in pretrial detention prior to pleading guilty to robbery in the first degree, played a relatively minor role in the robbery, which, although serious, was orchestrated by his considerably older brother, who was a repeat offender. The defendant suffers from developmental delays. While the defendant did participate in the robbery, it was the defendant’s brother, not the defendant, who wielded a gun and committed a sexual assault against one of the victims. Additional mitigating circumstances include the defendant’s lack of a prior juvenile record, criminal record, or violent history, and his cooperation with the authorities as part of the plea deal. Moreover, the defendant either had graduated from high school or was on the cusp of graduating from high school. Under all the circumstances, the interest of justice would be served by “relieving the defendant from the onus of a criminal record” … . People v Sheldon O., 2019 NY Slip Op 01430, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER MAKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILDREN TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, IT WAS NOT IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS TO RETURN TO HONDURAS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should have issued an order making findings to allow the child to petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS):

… [B]ased upon our independent factual review, the record supports a finding that reunification of the children with their mother is not viable due to parental abandonment … . The children testified that the mother left when they were both only three years old, and that they have not seen or spoken to the mother since that time. Thus, the record establishes that the mother has had no involvement with the children for the majority of their lives … .

Further, the record supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the children to return to Honduras, their previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence … . Francis testified that when the children lived with their paternal aunt in Honduras, they were “mistreat[ed] . . . emotionally and physically.” The children testified that when they then went to live with their father and stepmother in Honduras, the stepmother beat them and “wouldn’t give us food” when the father was not around, and that the stepmother was “verbally abusive,” telling the children, among other things, that they were “good for nothing.” The record reflects that the children had no one else to take care of them if they returned to Honduras. Consequently, the record demonstrates that it would not be in the best interests of the children to return to Honduras … . Matter of Norma U. v Herman T. R.F., 2019 NY Slip Op 01421, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

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