You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AND RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not prove standing to bring the action and compliance with the notice requirements of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304:

Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonge, which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the note, was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . …

… [T}he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that a notice of default in accordance with sections 15 and 22 of the mortgage was properly transmitted to the defendant prior to the commencement of this action … . …

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff failed to provide proof of the actual mailing of the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Further, although Victoria Wolff, an assistant secretary for the plaintiff, stated in an affidavit that the notices required under RPAPL 1304 were mailed, she did not aver that she had mailed the notices herself or otherwise claim to have personal knowledge of the mailing … . Raymond James Bank, NA v Guzzetti, 2022 NY Slip Op 00888, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, ,

THE FALSE IMPRISONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE IT ACCRUED WHEN DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED UPON ARRAIGNMENT, NOT WHEN HE WAS RELEASED UPON COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the false imprisonment cause of action was untimely because it accrued when plaintiff was released upon arraignment, not when he was released after completing his sentence:

Contrary to the motion court’s finding, the statute of limitations began to run not on the date on which plaintiff was released from incarceration, having completed his sentence, but on the date of his arraignment, when he was released on his own recognizance … . False imprisonment consists of detention without legal process and ends once the accused is held pursuant to legal process, such as arraignment … . Plaintiff’s incarceration following his conviction is not part of his false imprisonment claim and thus is not relevant to determining the date of expiration of the limitations period for the claim. Butler v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 00810, First Dept 2-8-22

 

, ,

CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE TENANTS IN THIS RENT-OVERCHARGE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined class certification in this rent overcharge action should not have been denied. The tenants alleged the landlord unlawfully deregulated apartments while receiving J-51 tax benefits:

Class certification was improperly denied. The determination of whether plaintiffs have a cause that may be asserted as a class action turns on the application of CPLR 901. That section provides that “[o]ne or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all” where five factors — sometimes characterized “as numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation and superiority” … . The party seeking class certification has the burden of establishing the prerequisites of CPLR 901(a) and thus establishing entitlement to certification … .

Here, plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating the prerequisites for class action certification under CPLR 901 and 902. Contrary to the motion court’s determination, plaintiffs established numerosity and typicality in their initial motion for class certification. The allegations in the amended complaint taken with the DOF tax bills showed that by June 2017, only 8 of 100 apartments were registered as rent-stabilized. … [T]his Court [has] held that similar bills were sufficient to establish numerosity, i.e., the number of deregulated units. As to typicality, the predominant legal question involves one that applies to the entire class—whether defendant unlawfully deregulated rent-stabilized apartments while receiving J-51 real estate tax abatement benefits. Cupka v Remik Holdings LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00812, First Dept 2-8-22

 

PLAINTIFF STARTED AN ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN NEW YORK; THEN DEFENDANT STARTED AN ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN ROMANIA; THE RESULTS OF THE ROMANIAN ACTION MAY BE DISPOSITIVE IN THE NEW YORK ACTION; THE NEW YORK ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE ROMANIAN ACTION, EVEN THOUGH THE NEW YORK ACTION WAS COMMENCED FIRST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Count, stayed the New York action pending the resolution of a related action brought by the defendant in Romania. the fact that the New York action was commenced first didn’t matter:

In March 2021, plaintiff brought this action to recover on a personal guaranty executed by defendant as consideration for a loan by plaintiff to two Romanian companies partly owned by defendant. Two months later, defendant brought suit against the instant plaintiff in Romania, seeking a declaration that the companies’ payment obligations under the underlying loan agreements were not enforceable.

… [T]he issues to be decided in the Romanian action are potentially dispositive of this action … . …

Although this action was filed first, chronology is not dispositive, “particularly where both actions are at the earliest stages of litigation” … . “[T]he practice of determining priorities between pending actions on the basis of dates of filing is a general rule, not to be applied in a mechanical way, regardless of other considerations” … . Here, both actions are in the early stages and were commenced reasonably close in time and the later-filed action is more “comprehensive” and involves more parties … . E D & F Man Sugar Ltd. v Gellert, 2022 NY Slip Op 00813, first Dept 2-8-22

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS PROPERLY IMPOSED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE POSTING OF AN UNDERTAKING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that, although the preliminary injunction in this breach of contract action was properly imposed, Supreme Court should have provided for an undertaking:

… [T]he court erred in granting the preliminary injunction without providing for an undertaking. With certain exceptions that are not applicable here, prior to the court granting a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must post an undertaking in an amount fixed by the court (see CPLR 6312 [b] … ), and that requirement may not be waived … . TDA, LLC v Lacey, 2022 NY Slip Op 00779. Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

, , ,

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS OF A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE MADE “UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF” DO NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined “upon information and belief” complaint allegations of a fraudulent conveyance did not state a cause of action:

The complaint fails to state a cause of action for constructive fraudulent conveyance under former Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273 and 274 … . Defendants are members of S. Land Development LLC (S. Land), which previously held title to real property and against which plaintiff obtained a money judgment in 2019 in a related action. Plaintiff alleges that defendants transferred or otherwise encumbered S. Land’s assets, rendering it insolvent and precluding plaintiff from being able to collect on the judgment. However, since the allegations are made “upon information and belief,” the complaint does not sufficiently allege that any transfers were made without fair consideration or rendered S. Land insolvent … . L&M 353 Franklyn Ave. LLC v Steinman, 2022 NY Slip Op 00724, First Dept 2-3-22

 

,

THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLD BY DEFENDANT’S DAUGHTER THAT HE HAD THE RIGHT ADDRESS; BUT, IN FACT, DEFENDANT DID NOT RESIDE AT THAT ADDRESS; SERVICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, in a matter of first impression, determined the service of process in this foreclosure action was invalid. A relative of a defendant (daughter) told the process service that the address where service was made was proper, but, in fact, the defendant did not reside at that address:

This appeal presents a simple question that has not previously arisen: whether an affirmative misrepresentation by a relative of a defendant at a residential address that the address is proper, which is relied upon by a process server, may establish that service was valid, if evidence establishes that the address is not, in fact, the defendant’s actual dwelling place or usual place of abode. We hold that, under the circumstances of this action, service of process upon the defendant at an address that was not actually his dwelling place or usual place of abode was defective, notwithstanding information provided to the process server at the doorstep. * * *

For a defendant to be estopped from raising a claim of defective service, the conduct misleading the process server must be the defendant’s conduct, as distinguished from conduct of a third party … . Everbank v Kelly, 2022 NY Slip Op 00651, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED ON THE PROMISED OUTCOME OF THE DENTAL WORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied making this dental malpractice action timely; and (2) plaintiff’s breach of contract action against defendant dentist (Irlin) should not have been dismissed:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affirmation of her current treating dentist, who opined that the plaintiff initially sought treatment from Irlin in order to obtain a permanent prosthetic replacement for the missing teeth in her upper jaw. The plaintiff’s dentist further opined that the numerous surgeries that the plaintiff underwent on her upper jaw to repair and replace implants and prostheses were related to Irlin’s initial alleged malpractice in failing to diagnose the bone condition that caused the implants and prostheses to become loose and need replacement. The record otherwise presents questions of fact as to whether the plaintiff timely initiated return visits to complain and seek corrective treatment from Irlin … . …

… [T]he individual defendants’ own submissions, which included the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and numerous signed consent forms written in English, demonstrated that the plaintiff has a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract against Irlin. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she agreed to the installation of dental implants and a permanent prosthetic device in her upper jaw because Irlin verbally promised her that it would “last a lifetime,” that she would “treat [the prosthesis] as if” it was her “own teeth,” and that she would only need follow-up appointments for cleanings once every 6 to 12 months, among other things. The individual defendants’ evidence could support the conclusion that the treatment Irlin rendered did not achieve these allegedly promised results. Chvetsova v Family Smile Dental, 2022 NY Slip Op 00650, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

, ,

THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DID NOT PRECLUDE THIS ACTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED 2017 ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; THE PRIOR ACTION CONCERNED ONLY THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED 2019 ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, held the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not preclude this Sullivan County action, which sought to determine whether a 2017 election of the board of dIrectors of plaintiff religious corporation was valid. A prior action in Kings County determined a 2019 election of the board of directors of the same corporation was a nullity:

As defendants’ amended petition and the order of Supreme Court … in the Kings County proceeding reflect, the issue to be determined therein was the validity of the 2019 election, not the validity of the 2017 election. Defendants sought in that proceeding to declare the 2019 election a nullity and, as a result, enjoin the individual plaintiffs, purportedly elected in 2019, from acting as the board of directors. Indeed, the court went out of its way during oral argument in that matter to so limit the issue when it stated that it “want[ed] to be very clear that [it was] making no determination in this case as to whether [defendants] have any right to control the corporation by virtue of any acts that predated the [June 2019 election.]” The court further clarified “that [it] take[s] no position on the validity of any actions that [defendants] claim[] to have taken in 2017 and thereafter,” and added that the allegations relating to the 2017 election was part of “[t]he Sullivan County matter” which “is not before [it],” and that the proceeding “has nothing to do with the Sullivan County matter.” More importantly, the order signed by the court was so circumscribed, and granted the amended petition “to the sole extent that it [sought] to invalidate” the 2019 election. Congregation Machne Ger v Berliner, 2022 NY Slip Op 00483, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

,

DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDING; HERE THE DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE AND HIS REMEDY WAS LIMITED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the judicial estoppel doctrine applied and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the workers’ compensation affirmative defense in this personal injury action should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured on the job. In the Workers’ Compensation proceeding defendants argued plaintiff was an not an employee. In this action defendants argued he was an employee and his recovery is limited to Workers’ Compensation:

… [T]he record makes clear that defendants, through Old Republic [insurance company], consistently advanced in the Workers’ Compensation Law proceeding the theory that plaintiff was not its employee. Old Republic, as the workers’ compensation carrier for defendants, was subsequently discharged from this proceeding. As such, defendants achieved its desired result after asserting the lack of an employer-employee relationship. Although the record is not explicit as to the basis for the discharge of Old Republic from the Workers’ Compensation Law proceeding, “[t]he policy behind judicial estoppel would not be served by limiting its application to cases where the legal position at issue was ruled upon in the context of a judgment” … .

In this action … defendants have taken a contrary position — i.e., plaintiff was employed by defendants as a special employee and, therefore, his sole remedy for compensation was to pursue workers’ compensation benefits. Allowing defendants to argue in this action that plaintiff was their employee, after they had disavowed an employer-employee relationship in the Workers’ Compensation Law proceeding and received a benefit from this position, would subvert the equitable policy behind the doctrine of judicial estoppel … . Walker v GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00484, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

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