You are here: / Bruce Freeman

Entries by Bruce Freeman

,

HERE IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE JUDGE LAID OUT THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT DEMONSTRATING A NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE AND IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE PLAINTIFF WAS AFFORDED NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO DISMISSAL FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined compliance with the “specific conduct” and “notice” requirements of CPLR 3216 had not been demonstrated. Therefore, he motion to dismiss for neglect to prosecute should not have been granted: Effective January 1, 2015, the legislature amended, in several significant respects, the statutory preconditions to dismissal under CPLR 3216″ […]

,

IF THE JUDGE DOES NOT LAY OUT IN DETAIL THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT JUSTIFYING A DISMISSAL OF AN ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 ARE NOT MET AND THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR THE FILING OF ANOTHER COMPLAINT (CPLR 205(A)) IS AVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the requirements for dismissing the first complaint for neglect to prosecute were not met. Therefore the six-month extension of the statute of limitations applied and the second complaint was not time-barred: … [T]he complaint in the prior action was not dismissed for “neglect to prosecute” within the meaning […]

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED RUNNING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS FIRST BROUGHT, THE SUBSEQUENT LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT, ENTERED WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS STILL PENDING, STARTED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNNING ANEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the six-year statute of limitations for the original foreclosure action had run, the loan modification agreement, which was entered after the foreclosure action was started and while it was still pending, restarted the statute of limitations: RPAPL 1501(4) provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]here the period allowed […]

, , ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ALLOW THE EX PARTE INTERVIEW OF THE NONPARTY TREATING PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, in a matter of first impression, determined defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to authorize an ex parte interview of the nonparty physician’s assistant (Molina) who treated plaintiff after her slip and fall was properly denied. Defendants sought to interview Molina about plaintiff’s statement concerning the […]

, , ,

A LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGES CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE DAMAGES WILL BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the legal malpractice complaint did not state a cause of action and should have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a). Conclusory and speculative allegations of damages are not sufficient: “‘To state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the attorney […]

,

THE APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT WAS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN INFORMANT WHO WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress the firearm found in a search of his apartment should have been granted. The application for the search warrant was supported by uncorroborated information from an informant who was not shown to be reliable: In support of the search warrant application, a police officer […]

,

​IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, A REFEREE’S REPORT BASED UPON UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed because the referenced business records were not attached to the report: “The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the […]

, ,

THE PARTY SEEKING A CONTEMPT FINDING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE FROM THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ONE COURT ORDER AND THE OTHER COURT ORDER DID NOT EXPRESS AN UNEQUIVOCAL MANDATE; CONTEMPT FINDING REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the evidence did not support a contempt finding against the trustee of a special needs trust (Wiltshire). The guardian of the incapacitated person (Daniels) demonstrated that Wiltshire failed to provide an accounting and failed to promptly pay certain expenses, but the proof of Wiltshire’s alleged failure to comply […]

,

THE CHILDREN’S HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE FATHER LEGALLY POSSESSED A FIREARM DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDING; THE EVIDENTIARY CRITERIA FOR NEGLECT ARE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the hearsay statements of the children and the children’s knowledge father legally possessed a firearm were not sufficient to support the neglect finding against father. The proof requirements for neglect and the proper role of hearsay is discussed in some depth: … [T]he hearsay evidence presented by the […]

, ,

THE DEFENDANT’S ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER CONVICTION RESTED ENTIRELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF A JAILHOUSE INFORMANT WHICH WAS AT ODDS WITH THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO; THE TESTIMONY OF THE INFORMANT WAS REJECTED, RENDERING DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s accomplice-to-murder conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. There was evidence the shooter came to and left the area where the shooting took place in a white sedan. Defendant owned a white sedan but it was not possible to tell whether the white sedan in the […]

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