You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

MOTHER HAD FLED TO ARGENTINA WITH THE CHILD WHILE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER’S PETITION SEEKING VISITATION ON THE GROUND SHE DID NOT HAVE STANDING; MATTER REMITTED FOR A BEST INTERESTS HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court erred in finding the maternal grandmother did not have standing to seek visitation and remitted the matter for a best interests hearing. Mother had fled to Argentina with the child when custody proceedings were pending:

“When a grandparent seeks visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(1), the court must make a two-part inquiry” … . The court must first determine if the grandparent has standing, based on death or equitable circumstances, and if it determines that the grandparent has established standing, it must then determine whether visitation is in the best interests of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 72[1] …).

“Standing [based upon equitable circumstances] should be conferred by the court, in its discretion, only after it has examined all the relevant facts” … . “[A]n essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship” … . “It is not sufficient that the grandparents allege love and affection for their grandchild” … . “They must establish a sufficient existing relationship with their grandchild, or in cases where that has been frustrated by the parents, a sufficient effort to establish one, so that the court perceives it as one deserving the court’s intervention” … .

Here, the Family Court’s determination that the grandmother lacked standing to seek visitation was not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record … . The evidence demonstrated that the grandmother developed a relationship with the child early on in his life and thereafter made repeated efforts to continue that relationship … . Matter of Noguera v Busto, 2020 NY Slip Op 07385, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR THE HARSH REMEDY OF ATTACHMENT WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the criteria for an order of attachment were not met. The court noted that suspicion of an intent to defraud and the removal, assignment or disposition of property is not enough to warrant the harsh remedy of attachment:

CPLR 6212(a) provides that, on a motion for an order of attachment, “the plaintiff shall show, by affidavit and such other written evidence as may be submitted, that there is a cause of action, that it is probable that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, that one or more grounds for attachment provided in section 6201 exist, and that the amount demanded from the defendant exceeds all counterclaims known to the plaintiff.” “Attachment is considered a harsh remedy and CPLR 6201 is strictly construed in favor of those against whom it may be employed” … .

The plaintiffs failed to make an adequate evidentiary showing that each of the defendants is a nondomiciliary residing without the state (see CPLR 6201[1]; see also General Construction Law § 35). Moreover, the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendants were attempting to defraud creditors or frustrate enforcement of a possible judgment against them (see CPLR 6201[3]) “was devoid of evidentiary support” … . “The fact that the affidavits in support of an attachment contain allegations raising a suspicion of an intent to defraud is not enough. It must appear that such fraudulent intent really existed in the defendant’s mind” … , and “the mere removal, assignment or other disposition of property is not grounds for attachment” … . 651 Bay St., LLC v Discenza, 2020 NY Slip Op 07331, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

THE SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE GENERALLY PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the prohibition against successive summary judgment motions applied and the second motion should have been denied:

“Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause” … . “Evidence is not newly discovered simply because it was not submitted on the previous motion” … . “Rather, the evidence that was not submitted in support of the previous summary judgment motion must be used to establish facts that were not available to the party at the time it made its initial motion for summary judgment and which could not have been established through alternative evidentiary means” … . “Successive motions for summary judgment should not be made based upon facts or arguments which could have been submitted on the original motion for summary judgment” … . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Carpenter, 2020 NY Slip Op 07426, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A 30-DAY ADJOURNMENT TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT A DECEASED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s request for a 30-day adjournment to petition or move to have the public administrator appointed for a deceased defendant’s (Conrad’s) estate should have been granted. Supreme Court had granted the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to substitute a representative of the deceased defendant pursuant to CPLR 1021:

A motion to substitute a party “may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party” and is to be made within a reasonable time after the death of the party (CPLR 1021). “[I]f the event requiring substitution is the death of a party and timely substitution has not been made, the court, before proceeding further, shall, on such notice as it may in its discretion direct, order the persons interested in the decedent’s estate to show cause why the action or appeal should not be dismissed.” (id).

CPLR 1015(a) provides that “[i]f a party dies and the claim for or against him is not thereby extinguished the court shall order substitution of the proper parties.” … . Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that the death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction to render a judgment until a proper substitution has been made, so that any step taken without it may be deemed void, including an appellate decision” … . …

In light of the relatively short passage of time between Conrad’s death and the time defendants’ motion was made, the allegation in plaintiff’s complaint that the reverse mortgage upon which this case is premised was obtained fraudulently and is null and void, and the fact that the defendant banks had not even moved for substitution in the related foreclosure action, it was an abuse of discretion for the motion court not to allow plaintiff, at a minimum, the additional 30 days requested to seek to have the public administrator appointed so that the case could move forward and be decided on the merits. Dugger v Conrad, 2020 NY Slip Op 07313, First Dept 12-8-20

 

, ,

PURPORTED MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MADE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT REVIVE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE PURCHASERS OF THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY OR THE BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE SECURED BY THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined mortgage payments allegedly made after the expiration of the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action did not revive the statute of limitations as against defendants, who purchased the encumbered property, and defendant bank which issued a mortgage secured by the property:

… [T]he tolling or revival effect of partial payments differs as between the payor — the Gureckis — and subsequent purchasers — defendants (see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [2]). [A] qualifying partial payment that is made before the expiration of the statute of limitations will renew the statute of limitations against any subsequent purchaser (see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [2] [2d par] .. ). In contrast, a qualifying partial payment that is made after the expiration of the statute of limitations will only revive the statute of limitations as to a subsequent purchaser who did not give value or who had actual notice of the making of the payment … . Here, … at the time that [the payments] were made the statute of limitations had expired. Given that the record is clear that defendants are purchasers for value and plaintiff put forth no evidence that defendants had actual notice of the … payments, the payments did not have the effect of reviving the statute of limitations as to defendants (see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [2] …). Gurecki v Gurecki, 2020 NY Slip Op 07257, Third Dept 12-3-20

 

,

THE RECEIPT OF THE LETTER BY CERTIFIED MAIL, NOT THE PRIOR RECEIPT OF AN EMAIL WITH THE LETTER ATTACHED, TRIGGERED THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; THE OMISSION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE RESPONDENTS BE SERVED WITH THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE COULD BE REMEDIED BY AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the receipt of a letter by certified mail on January 22, not the receipt of the email with the letter attached on January 17, started the four-month statute of limitations for the Article 78 action. The letter was the final determination of the respondent Department of Health, denying petitioner’s application to open an assisted living facility.  In addition, the Third Department determined a mistake made in the order to show cause, which did not require service upon the respondents, could be remedied. Therefore petitioners should be granted an extension of time to serve respondents pursuant to CPLR 306-b:

There is no dispute that the January 17 letter constituted a final and binding determination. At issue is whether counsel’s receipt of the January 17 email or counsel’s receipt of the January 17 letter by certified mail on January 22, 2019 provided the notice necessary to trigger the running of the statute of limitations. …

We recognize that there is only one letter, the January 17 letter, a copy of which was attached to the January 17 email and the original was delivered by certified mail on January 22, 2019. That said, even though an email delivery could have sufficed, respondents opted to effect delivery of the January 17 letter through the more formal certified mailing process, by which actual delivery and receipt are confirmed with the recipient’s signature. Given that format, it was not necessarily unreasonable for petitioners to have assumed that receipt of the January 17 letter on January 22, 2017 triggered the limitations period or, at least, an ambiguity was created as to whether to measure the time period from that date. As such, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as untimely … . …

Petitioners submitted, and Supreme Court signed, a proposed order to show cause providing for service upon respondents by service on the Attorney General. Petitioners complied with the terms of that order, but such service was manifestly defective because petitioners were also statutorily required to effect service upon respondents (see CPLR 307, 7804 [c]). In their cross motion, petitioners promptly sought permission to correct this error, and it is evident that respondents were in no way prejudiced. Not to be overlooked is the looming expiration of the statute of limitations. Under such circumstances, rather than dismissing a proceeding, a court is authorized to extend the time for service “upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice” (CPLR 306-b …). Matter of Park Beach Assisted Living, LLC v Zucker, 2020 NY Slip Op 07264, Third Dept 12-3-20

 

, ,

IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE FOR THE PLAINTIFF-DEBTOR, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO SEEK RELIEF FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that, as a matter of comity, based upon an order in bankruptcy court, a New York court will substitute the bankruptcy trustee as a party in a suit involving the plaintiff/debtor. Here there was no such order and the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted:

“‘[T]he integrity of the bankruptcy system depends on full and honest disclosure by debtors of all of their assets'” … . “By failing to list causes of action on bankruptcy schedules of assets, the debtor represents that it has no such claims” … .

“[O]nce a bankruptcy proceeding is commenced, all legal or equitable interests of the debtor become part of the bankruptcy estate, including any causes of action (… see 11 USC § 541[a][1]). Accordingly, where a debtor has sought chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, “the causes of action formerly belonging to the debtor . . . [vest] in the trustee for the benefit of the estate . . . [and] [t]he debtor has no standing to pursue such causes of action” … .

In cases where a plaintiff-debtor has successfully petitioned the bankruptcy court to reopen the bankruptcy to include a pending action, this Court has invoked the doctrine of comity to permit substitution of the bankruptcy trustee as a plaintiff … . Here, however, the Supreme Court went further, directing [plaintiff] to seek such relief from the bankruptcy court and denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint … . …

Under these circumstances, the court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint … . Nevertheless, the trustee, if he or she should chose to re-commence the case in his or her own name, will enjoy the protection offered by CPLR 205 … . Turner v Owens Funeral Home, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 07238, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NEVER ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, HE APPEARED BY MAKING A MOTION TO DISMISS AND PARTICIPATED IN THE LITIGATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE A NECESSARY PARTY OR THE FAILURE TO JOIN OR SUBSTITUTE A PARTY WAS NOT WARRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the default should have been granted. Although defendant did not submit an answer, he did move to dismiss the complaint, which extended his time to answer, and thereafter participated in the litigation. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground a necessary party was not included in the suit, and on the ground a party should have been substituted or joined:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate his default in answering the complaint. “CPLR 320(a) provides that a defendant may appear in an action in one of three ways: (1) by serving an answer, (2) by serving a notice of appearance, or (3) making a motion which has the effect of extending the time to answer” … . Here, the defendant appeared in the action in May 2008, when he, among others, moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, which extended his time to serve an answer (see CPLR 320[a]; 3211[f]). Although the defendant did not serve an answer to the complaint following the denial of his motion, the record demonstrates that the defendant actively participated in the litigation during the ensuing years and that the plaintiffs never moved for leave to enter a default judgment against him. …

“CPLR 1001(a) provides that ‘[p]ersons . . . who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action’ are necessary parties whose joinder is required” … . “‘When a person who should be joined under [CPLR 1001(a)] has not been made a party and is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall order him summoned'”…. . However, “[u]pon any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original parties unless the court directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted or joined in the action” (CPLR 1018). “The determination to substitute or join a party pursuant to CPLR 1018 is within the discretion of the trial court” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the plaintiffs to continue this action against the original defendants, despite any alleged changes to the composition of the purported board of trustees … over the course of this 16-year litigation, in order to avoid any further unnecessary delay … . Kelley v Garuda, 2020 NY Slip Op 07180, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DIRECTION TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT “ON NOTICE” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s foreclosure action, sua sponte, as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. Supreme Court, after plaintiff’s unopposed motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, directed the plaintiff to “submit judgment.” When plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment for signature, Supreme Court dismissed the action because the proposed judgment was not submitted within 60 days. The 60-day time limit only applies when a party is directed to submit the judgment “on notice:”

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48, an order or judgment which is directed to be settled or submitted on notice must be submitted for signature within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order or judgment be settled or submitted. A party who fails to submit the order or judgment within the 60-day time period will be deemed to have abandoned the action or motion, absent good cause shown … . In this case, when the Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, it did not direct that the proposed judgment had to be settled or submitted on notice. 22 NYCRR 202.48 does not apply where, as here, the court merely directs a party to submit an order or judgment without expressly directing that the order or judgment be submitted on notice … . James B. Nutter & Co. v McLaughlin, 2020 NY Slip Op 07178, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, , ,

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

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, the notice of default requirements of the mortgage, and standing to bring the action. Evidence submitted in reply papers should not have been considered:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of DiMario Abrams, a vice president for the plaintiff’s loan servicer, as well as copies of the notices and the envelopes in which the notices were allegedly mailed. Abrams did not purport to have personal knowledge of the actual mailing of the notices pursuant to RPAPL 1304, he did not purport to have personal knowledge of the mailing procedures utilized by the plaintiff’s loan servicer, and he did not lay a proper foundation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule with respect to the notices and envelopes attached to his affidavit … . * * *

The plaintiff submitted a lost note affidavit prepared by Dereje D. Badada, a vice president for its loan servicer. According to that affidavit, the note had “been inadvertently lost, misplaced or destroyed,” and the loan servicer had “not pledged, assigned, transferred, hypothecated or otherwise disposed of the note.” There was no allegation in the lost note affidavit that the note had ever been delivered or assigned to the plaintiff, nor were there any details regarding when or how the note was lost, who searched for the note, or when they searched for the note. Therefore, the lost note affidavit did not establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the note or the facts preventing it from producing the note (see UCC 3-804 …). U.S. Bank N.A. v Kohanov, 2020 NY Slip Op 07242, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

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