, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEFENDANT DEBTOR ENTERED A MORTGAGE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT WHICH CALLED FOR THREE PAYMENTS; DEFENDANT DEBTOR MADE FOUR ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IN AMOUNTS HIGHER THAN CALLED FOR IN THE MORTGAGE; THE PAYMENTS AMOUNTED TO AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT WHICH STARTED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE ON THE DATE OF THE LAST PAYMENT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the defendant debtor acknowledged the mortgage debt by paying more than was required by the Home Affordable Modification Trial Payment Plan. Therefore the statute of limitations for foreclosure started running when defendant debtor made the last payment:

In this mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in concluding that the complaint was timely inasmuch as Maxi Jeanty (debtor) made four payments between August 2009 and March 2010 on account of the mortgage debt which were effective pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-107 (1) to make the statute of limitations begin running anew on the date of the last such payment. We agree. Plaintiff met its prima facie burden on its motion … by submitting evidence that, after entering a Home Affordable Modification Trial Payment Plan (the Plan), the debtor made a total of seven payments from April 2009 through March 2010, each in an amount exceeding that of the regular installment payments required under the loan documents prior to the acceleration of the debt in August 2008. The first three payments were required pursuant to the Plan, but the remaining four were not. Those four payments established circumstances amounting to ‘an absolute and unqualified acknowledgment by the debtor of more being due, from which a promise may be inferred to pay the remainder’ (… see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [1]). Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Jeanty, 2022 NY Slip Op 06539, CtApp 11-17-22

Practice Point: In this foreclosure action, payments by the debtor which exceeded what was called for in the modification payment plan amounted to an acknowledgment of the mortgage debt. Therefore the statute of limitations on foreclosure began to run on the date of the last of those payments.

​

, ,

THE BIG APPLE MAP RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WAS AMENDED TO FIX A DEFICIENCY IN PLEADING THAT THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) there was a question of fact whether the Big Apple map provided the city with written notice of the sidewalk defect alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall; (2) the city’s evidence to the contrary was improperly first submitted in reply; (3) the plaintiff was entitled to amend the complaint to correct the deficiency in pleading the city had written notice of the sidewalk defect:

In support of its summary judgment motion, the City submitted evidence, including the most recent Big Apple Map received by the City prior to plaintiff’s accident, and argued that the Map did not depict the type of sidewalk defect that plaintiff testified caused her accident.

Based on all the evidence submitted, including the Big Apple Map and photographs of the sidewalk defect, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the City had prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition … . The City’s contention that the Big Apple Map had been rendered inapplicable by subsequent sidewalk repairs is unavailing. Aside from the fact that this argument was improperly raised for the first time on reply, the City’s submissions indicated that the defect remained unchanged. Further, the issue of whether the Big Apple Map was sufficiently close in time to provide prior written notice, and whether the area had remained unchanged, was a question for the jury … . Bchakjan v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06543, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: In NYC, a Big Apple map may provide the city with written notice of a sidewalk defect.

 

, ,

NEW YORK DOES NOT HAVE GENERAL OR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A UK CORPORATION WHICH ALLEGEDLY MANUFACTURED A DEFECTIVE PART OF AN EXCAVATOR (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Miller defendants, a UK corporation, were not amenable to general or long-arm jurisdiction in New York. Plaintiff alleged a part (a coupler) made by Miller failed causing an excavator bucket to detach and fall:

General jurisdiction exists over a corporate entity only in the state(s) in which it is incorporated and has its principal place of business … . * * *

Defendants have also failed to establish specific jurisdiction over the Miller parties pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1), CPLR 302 (a)(3)(i) or CPLR 302 (a)(3)(ii). Although the Miller parties might have placed the coupler involved in plaintiff’s accident into the stream of commerce, and while they tout having a global customer base and business model, the Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that “the ‘fortuitous circumstance’ that a product sold in another state later makes its way into the forum jurisdiction through no marketing or other effort of [the] defendant,” or “‘the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum[,]’ cannot establish the requisite connection between [the] defendant and the forum” to support an exercise of specific personal jurisdiction … . Cruz v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06546, First Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: The ‘fortuitous circumstance’ that a product sold in another state later makes its way into the forum jurisdiction through no marketing or other effort of [the] defendant,” or “‘the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum[,]’ cannot establish the requisite connection between [the] defendant and the forum” to support an exercise of specific personal jurisdiction. Here New York did not have general or long-arm jurisdiction over a UK corporation which manufactured a part on an excavator which allegedly failed causing the excavator bucket to detach.

 

, ,

HERE THE FAILURE TO OPPOSE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS DUE TO NEGLECT WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT VACATUR; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order entered upon plaintiff’s default should not have been granted:

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), “[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person . . . upon the ground of . . . excusable default.” “A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in opposing a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion” . “Law office failure may qualify as a reasonable excuse for a party’s default if the claim of such failure is supported by a credible” and detailed explanation of the default … . The determination as to what constitutes a reasonable excuse is a matter of the court’s discretion, but mere neglect will not suffice … .

… [A] managing attorney at the law firm representing the plaintiff was notified of the February 28, 2018 adjourned deadline to submit opposition papers to the defendants’ motion, and a member of the firm entered a “follow up docket date” for February 7, 2018, “to ensure that the opposition was being handled” … . However, instead of “follow[ing] up with the managing attorney to make sure the opposition was assigned,” the member of the law firm returned the file to the file room. As the member of the law firm affirmed, “[i]t simply was not addressed properly.” … [T]he plaintiff did not move to vacate the order dated August 29, 2018, for approximately eight months, or 253 days, after being served with the order and notice of entry … .

… [T]he plaintiff’s failure to oppose the defendants’ motion was the equivalent of mere neglect and was therefore insufficient to warrant vacatur … . Sauteanu v BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06509, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: A motion to vacate an order entered upon a party’s default may be granted on law-office-failure grounds but not if the matter was simply neglected. Here the plaintiff did not move to vacate the order for 253 days after service of the order and notice of entry. The court found the plaintiff’s failure to oppose the summary judgment was due to neglect and the motion to vacate the order should not have been granted.

 

, ,

THE ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN CPLR 3215(G)(4) DOES NOT APPLY TO SERVICE UPON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS OPPOSED TO A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff was not required to comply with the additional notice requirement in CPLR 3215(g)(4) which does not apply to service upon a limited liability company (the defendant here), as opposed to corporations:

The court [in denying plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment] determined that the plaintiff had failed to comply with CPLR 3215(g)(4) and that the respondent had a reasonable excuse for failing to answer the complaint in that it had not been served with process. …

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate compliance with the additional notice requirement of CPLR 3215(g)(4) … . “By its express terms, the notice requirement is limited to situations where a default judgment is sought against a ‘domestic or authorized foreign corporation’ which has been served pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306(b), and does not pertain to a limited liability company” … . Mitchell v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 06477, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: The additional notice requirement for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215(g)(4) does not apply to service on a limited liability company, as opposed to a corporation.

 

, , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS REQUIRED TO SHOW STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION AND DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure did not demonstrate standing the bring the action and compliance with the notice-of-default mailing requirement of RPAPL 1304:

A plaintiff has standing to maintain a mortgage foreclosure action where it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced … . Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Shamona Marisa Truesdale, a vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Truesdale stated that she was familiar with Wells Fargo’s records and record-keeping practices. She further stated that the plaintiff was in possession of the note on October 8, 2009, the date this action was commenced. Truesdale’s statement that the plaintiff had possession of the note at the time this action was commenced was inadmissible hearsay. Although Truesdale stated that she was familiar with the records and record-keeping practices of Wells Fargo, the plaintiff’s loan servicer, she failed to state that she was familiar with the records and record-keeping practices of the plaintiff itself. Thus, Truesdale failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of any of the plaintiff’s business records … . * * *

The plaintiff can establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 by submitting domestic return receipts, proof of a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, or an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice actually happened … .

Here, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Jack Whitmarsh, a vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo, who averred that, based on his review of Wells Fargo’s records, the required notice was sent by both certified mail and first-class mail. The plaintiff also submitted a copy of the RPAPL 1304 notice, which was sent to the defendants at the mortgaged premises, and which was stamped with a certified mailing number, as well as a printout of a record purportedly evidencing certified mailing of the notice. However, these documents were insufficient to prove the mailing of the notice by certified mail actually occurred … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence that the notice was mailed by first-class mail … . Further, Whitmarsh did not aver that he had personal knowledge of the mailing and did not describe any standard office procedure designed to ensure that the notices are mailed … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Gordon, 2022 NY Slip Op 06473, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: Here the bank apparently submitted the business records necessary to demonstrate the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action but the accompanying affidavit did not lay a proper foundation for admitting them. In addition the bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice-of-default mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

, ,

IF A TRIAL JUDGE DECIDES THE DAMAGES AWARDED BY THE JURY ARE EXCESSIVE, THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO ORDER A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF STIPULATES TO THE REDUCED AWARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department agreed with the trial judge’s reduction of damages awarded by the jury in this wrongful death case but noted that the judge should have ordered a new trial unless plaintiff stipulated to the lower damages amount:

… [W]hile the 21-year-old Bohdan [plaintiff’s decedent], who worked in the family business, lived with his parents, and cared for his younger sibling, was described as a wonderful, loving son who was especially helpful around the home, based on the record, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the jury awards for past pecuniary loss and future pecuniary loss were excessive. … . … [I]t was procedurally improper for the court to reduce the awards of damages for past pecuniary loss and future pecuniary loss without granting a new trial on those issues unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict … . Vitenko v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06515, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: If the trial judge decides the damages awarded by the jury are excessive, the proper procedure is to order a new trial unless the plaintiff stipulates to the reduced amount.

 

, ,

THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS UNDER THE NYS AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW IS TOLLED BY FILING A CHARGE FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION WITH THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the age discrimination claims under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law were timely brought because the three-year statute of limitations was tolled when plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC):

Plaintiff’s action, asserting claims of age discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296[1][a]) and the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code § 8-107), was timely commenced, as the three-year statute of limitations was tolled by her filing of a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) … . The filing of an EEOC charge constitutes a simultaneous and automatic filing with the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) due to a work-sharing agreement between the two agencies … .

Moreover, Administrative Code § 8-502(d) provides, “[u]pon the filing of a complaint with the city commission on human rights or the state division of human rights and during the pendency of such complaint and any court proceeding for review of the dismissal of such complaint, such three-year limitations shall be tolled.” The interplay between the EEOC/SDHR work-sharing agreement and the tolling provision in § 8-502(d) “indicates that a charge filed with the EEOC would also toll the statute of limitations period for [City HRL] claims” … . Gabin v Greenwich House, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06428, First Dept 11-15-22

Practice Point: Filing an age discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) tolls the three-year statute of limitation for filing age discrimination claims pursuant the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law.

 

, , ,

BG, AN ADOLESCENT OFFENDER (AO) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “RAISE THE AGE ACT,” ASSAULTED A MAN AND THREW HIM ON THE SUBWAY TRACKS; A BYSTANDER JUMPED DOWN TO HELP THE ASSAULT VICTIM; THE BYSTANDER WAS KILLED BY A SUBWAY TRAIN WHICH STOPPED BEFORE REACHING THE ASSAULT VICTIM; THE JUDGE RULED THE MATTER SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO FAMILY COURT; THE PEOPLE SOUGHT A WRIT OF PROHIBITION WHICH WAS DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department denied the People’s request for a writ of prohibition to prevent respondent judge from sending a criminal case involving an adolescent offender (AO) to Family Court pursuant to the “Raise the Age Law.” In criminal matters involving AO’s the Raise the Age Law allows judges to decide whether the matter should heard in Family Court. Here BG, the AO, assaulted the victim  in a subway station and threw the victim on the tracks. A bystander jumped down to try to help the victim. The train was able to stop before reaching the assault victim, but the bystander who tried to help the victim was killed by the train:

Justice Semaj rejected the People’s argument that BG engaged in “heinous” conduct by pushing the surviving victim onto the tracks and leaving him there unconscious, observing that this argument was “rebutted by the video footage offered by the People,” which showed that the surviving victim “was conscious at the time he was pushed on to the tracks and even if he became unconscious once on the tracks, [BG] and another young person are seen going into the tracks and seemingly moving [him], possibly inadvertently, but . . . out of harm’s way.” The court further noted that Hueston [the bystander] chose to jump onto the train tracks, and that BG left after he “was told to leave by [Hueston].” … . * * *

“A writ of prohibition against a judge may be issued only when a court acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction in a matter of which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction” … . “Prohibition cannot be used merely to correct errors of law, however egregious and however unreviewable” … . The Court of Appeals has stressed that, in the context of criminal proceedings, the writ should be issued “only when a court exceeds its jurisdiction or authorized power in such a manner as to implicate the legality of the entire proceeding, as for example, the prosecution of a crime committed beyond the county’s geographic jurisdiction” … . “Although the distinction between legal errors and actions in excess of power is not always easily made, abuses of power may be identified by their impact upon the entire proceeding as distinguished from an error in a proceeding itself” … . Matter of Clark v Boyle, 2022 NY Slip Op 06316, First Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: Pursuant to the “Raise the Age Law” criminal cases involving adolescent offenders (AO’s) are reviewed by a judge who can chose to have the case heard in Family Court. The AO in this case assaulted a man and threw him onto subway tracks. The man survived but a bystander who tried to help him was killed by the train. The People sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the transfer to Family Court. The First Department laid out the strict criteria for a writ of prohibition and denied it.

 

, ,

THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR REFILING A COMPLAINT AFTER DISMISSAL (CPLR 205(A)) BEGAN TO RUN ONLY WHEN THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL WAS EXHAUSTED (FOURTH DEPT).

​The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the six-month period for filing a new complaint after dismissal started to run when the appeal of the denial of the motion to vacate the dismissal was exhausted:

Where a plaintiff has sought to appeal as of right from the denial of a motion to vacate the dismissal of its action, the action terminates for purposes of CPLR 205 (a) when the appeal “is truly ‘exhausted,’ either by a determination on the merits or by dismissal of the appeal, even if the appeal is dismissed as abandoned … . “Here, the dismissal of the 2012 action “did not constitute a final termination of that action within the meaning of CPLR 205 (a) because plaintiff’s predecessor in interest was statutorily authorized to file a motion to vacate [the dismissal] and to appeal from the denial of that motion” … . The 2012 action thus terminated for purposes of CPLR 205 (a) on November 30, 2018, when this Court dismissed the appeal and plaintiff’s predecessor in interest thereby exhausted its right of appeal … . Inasmuch as the instant action was commenced within six months of November 30, 2018, we conclude that it was timely commenced. MTGLQ Invs., LP v Zaveri, 2022 NY Slip Op 06335, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: The six-month period for refiling a complaint after dismissal (CPLR 208(a)) begins to run only after the appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the dismissal is exhausted.