You are here: / Bruce Freeman

Entries by Bruce Freeman

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING THE ADDRESS IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS NOT HIS DWELLING PLACE; DEFENDANT TOOK AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO MISLEAD THE PARTY ATTEMPTING TO SERVE HIM (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been estopped from claiming the address in the affidavit of service was not his “dwelling plaice” because defendant misled the party attempting to serve him: Estoppel, in this context, may preclude a defendant “from challenging the location and propriety of service of process if that […]

, ,

THE LETTER SENT TO THE BORROWER BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY INDICATE THE DEBT WAS BEING IMMEDIATELY ACCELERATED; THEREFORE THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letter sent by the bank to the borrower in this foreclosure action did not accelerate the debt and therefore did not trigger the six-year statute of limitations: … [A] ” ‘letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, . . . does not constitute an exercise of […]

, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS PROPERLY MAILED AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE CURED BY THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the defect was not cured by an affidavit submitted in reply: … [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Kolette Modlin, an authorized officer of Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter Caliber), the loan servicer for […]

, ,

INFANT PLAINTFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER WHILE IN A CROSS-WALK WITH THE WALK SIGNAL ON; SUN-GLARE IS NOT AN “EMERGENCY” WHICH WILL RAISE A QUESTON OF FACT; PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian-cross-walk traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendant driver alleged sun-glare prevented her from seeing the infant plaintiff in the cross-walk. Sun-glare is not an “emergency” and did not raise a question of fact: … [A] “violation of a standard […]

THE DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF AND/OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A PUDDLE OF LIQUID) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store (Whole Foods) did not demonstrated it did not have constructive notice of the puddle of liquid which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall: … [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Yerry [plaintiff] as the nonmovant, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the […]

,

AN ACTION CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 WHEN ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN JOINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure complaint should not have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 because issue had not been joined: “A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met, including that issue has been joined in the […]

, , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not prove compliance with the mailing requirements for mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice and the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint: … [P]laintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the required RPAPL 1304 notice was […]

, ,

THE MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGATIONS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PRIOR TO APRIL 2013 AS TIME-BARRED WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DISSENT ARGUING THAT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS SUPPORTED APPLYING THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE AND THE MATTER SHOULD PROCEED TO DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the continuous treatment doctrine did not apply and defendants’ motion to dismiss allegations of medical malpractice occurring before April 9, 2013, was properly granted. The decision is detailed and fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here: Accepting the plaintiff’s expansive view that the mere status of receiving […]

, , ,

CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER ASPIRIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED AS TREATMENT FOR STROKE WAS RAISED IN A DEPOSITION (BUT NOT IN THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS) ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO RAISE THE ISSUE IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. The was conflicting expert-opinion evidence about whether plaintiff should have been administered aspirin as treatment for a stroke. Although the aspirin-issue was first raised in opposition to defendants’ motions, the issue had been […]

, ,

THE ACTION, WHICH STEMMED FROM PLAINTIFF’S BEING DROPPED IN THE DELIVERY ROOM IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIRTH, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action, which stemmed from being dropped in the delivery room immediately after birth in 1999, sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence, and was therefore time-barred: CPLR 208 provides that the statute of limitations is tolled throughout the period of infancy, but limits such toll to 10 years […]

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