You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

CPLR 204(A) IN CONJUNCTION WITH RPAPL 1301(3) TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHILE THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING, FROM 2010 TO 2013, RENDERING THE SECOND FORECLOSURE ACTION IN 2017 TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, reversing Supreme Court, determined the instant foreclosure action was not time barred because CPLR 204(a) in conjunction with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1301(3) prohibited bringing the instant action while the first action was pending:

In September 2003, defendant, in exchange for a loan to purchase a residence, executed a note secured by a mortgage on that real property. The note and mortgage were later assigned to plaintiff. After defendant failed to make some payments, on May 5, 2010 plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action against defendant, which Supreme Court (Drago, J.) dismissed on October 30, 2013 for failure to prosecute. In April 2015, Supreme Court (Buchannan, J.) denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal. In 2017, plaintiff commenced a second foreclosure action. * * *

CPLR 204 (a) provides that, “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” * * *

The statute that plaintiff relies on, in conjunction with CPLR 204 (a), is RPAPL 1301 (3), which provides that, while an action for a mortgage debt “is pending or after final judgment for the plaintiff therein, no other action shall be commenced or maintained to recover any part of the mortgage debt, without leave of the court in which the former action was brought.” The purpose of RPAPL 1301 (3) is “to shield the mortgagor from the expense and annoyance of two independent actions at the same time with reference to the same debt … . … [P]laintiff established that the statute was tolled during the pendency of the first foreclosure action, from May 2010 to October 2013. Citimortgage, Inc. v Ramirez, 2020 NY Slip Op 07970, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECTLY NAME THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 305(C) AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend to complaint to reflect the correct name of the defendant should have been granted:

In September 2016, plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell in the bathroom of a McDonald’s restaurant located in the Town of Williamson, Wayne County. In August 2019, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant to recover for the injuries that he sustained. Defendant answered, asserting, among other affirmative defenses, a lack of personal jurisdiction and that she is not a proper party because she does not own, operate, maintain or control the business in which plaintiff was allegedly injured. Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds, contending that “Nancyone, Inc.,” a New York corporation for which defendant is a corporate officer, owned and operated the subject McDonald’s restaurant and that it had not been properly served with the summons and complaint prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. …

Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of his cross motion that sought leave to amend his complaint pursuant to CPLR 305 (c). We agree. As relevant here, “[i]f a defendant has been misnamed in the caption of the summons and complaint, but has nonetheless been properly served within the limitations period, amendment of the summons and complaint should be allowed in the absence of demonstrated prejudice to a substantial right” … . Kachadourian v Wilkes, 2020 NY Slip Op 07972, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

, ,

THE BANK PRESENTED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not submit admissible evidence of standing to bring the foreclosure action:

While a witness may always testify as to matters within his or her personal knowledge through personal observation … , here, Klein [plaintiff’s counsel] did not provide any factual details concerning when Cohn & Roth [Klein’s lawfirm] came into physical possession of the consolidated note and allonges … . Modlin’s [an authorized signatory’s] affidavit was similarly deficient inasmuch as she failed to identify the documents reviewed or any basis for the conclusion that the consolidated note and allonges had been in the plaintiff’s possession and were sent to Cohn & Roth prior to the commencement of the action. Under these circumstances, the statements made by Klein and Modlin constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v Auxila, 2020 NY Slip Op 07945, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

,

IN THIS ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE AFFIDAVITS OF CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, INFORMATION SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in an action seeking to enforce affidavits of confession of judgment, determined the motion to quash information subpoenas should not have been granted:

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to quash the information subpoenas. CPLR 5223 compels disclosure of “all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment.” A judgment creditor is entitled to discovery from either the judgment debtor or a third party in order “to determine whether the judgment debtor[ ] concealed any assets or transferred any assets so as to defraud the judgment creditor or improperly prevented the collection of the underlying judgment” … . …

… [A] party moving to quash a subpoena has the initial burden of establishing either that the requested disclosure “is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious” … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the fact that they are seeking to rescind the judgment by confession in a separate action against the plaintiffs, without more, does not preclude enforcement of the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants … . Furthermore, the defendants failed to proffer any evidence that the requested disclosure is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious. Lisogor v Nature’s Delight, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 07879, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, , ,

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAIINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been allowed to amend the answer to assert the lack-of-standing defense and plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing with admissible evidence:

“In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, applications to amend or supplement a pleading are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” ( …see CPLR 3025[b]). The burden of demonstrating prejudice or surprise, or that a proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, falls upon the party opposing the motion … . “‘Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'”… . Here, BAC Home failed to show that any surprise or prejudice would result from the proposed amendments and did not demonstrate that the proposed amendments were palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … .

The defendant did not waive the defense of lack of standing by failing to interpose the defense in his original answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see RPAPL 1302-a).

Here, in order to establish its standing, BAC Home [plaintiff’s predecessor] submitted affidavits from two document execution representatives of Ditech [plaintiff], each of whom stated that review of Ditech’s business records relating to the subject mortgage loan had confirmed that BAC Home was in possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. However, neither affiant identified any particular document reviewed, nor did they attach to their respective affidavits any admissible document to show that BAC Home possessed the note prior to the commencement of this action. The affidavits also failed to show that either affiant possessed personal knowledge of whether BAC Home possessed the note prior to the commencement of the action. Under these circumstances, the affidavits constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked any probative value (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Ditech Fin., LLC v Khan, 2020 NY Slip Op 07865, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order of dismissal should have been granted because the conditions in CPLR 3216 were not met by the order:

“CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with” … . As relevant here, an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him or her for unreasonably neglecting to proceed … . “While a conditional order of dismissal may have the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216” … , the conditional order of dismissal here “‘was defective in that it failed to state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice “will serve as a basis for a motion” by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute'” … . The Supreme Court should not have administratively dismissed the action without further notice to the parties and without benefit of further judicial review … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Henry, 2020 NY Slip Op 07863, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

THE DECRETAL PARAGRAPH OF THE APPELLATE DECISION REMITTING THE MATTER FOR RETRIAL DID NOT IMPOSE THE CONDITIONS ON RETRIAL WHICH WERE IMPOSED BY SUPREME COURT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the decretal paragraph in the appellate decision remitting the matter to Supreme Court did not impose restrictions on the issues to be retried:

“‘A trial court, upon remittitur, lacks the power to deviate from the mandate of the higher court”‘ … . “An order or judgment entered by the lower court on a remittitur ‘must conform strictly to the remittitur'” … . The language in the decretal paragraph controls the extent of the remittitur … .

Here, there is no limiting language in the decretal paragraph of our prior decision and order that would indicate that the new trial would be on issues of apportionment of liability among the defendants. Further, there is no language in that decretal paragraph indicating that the damages awards remain undisturbed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have limited the new trial to issues of apportionment of liability among the defendants. Daniele v Pain Mgt. Ctr. of Long Is., 2020 NY Slip Op 07860, Second Dept  12-23-20

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, IMPOSED AN INJUNCTION AND DETERMINED ISSUES OF FACT; NO MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT AND NO HEARING WAS HELD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, imposed an injunction on defendant and determined issues of fact without a motion before the court and without holding a hearing:

The Supreme Court, after a status conference … , issued an order, sua sponte, … which, … directed the defendant … to take all steps necessary to obtain a permit from the Department of Buildings to complete the work on one of the subject properties and expedite repairs to that property, including the submission of new plans by the defendant … .

Since no motion was pending before it, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, and without a hearing, imposed an injunction on the defendant and determined issues of fact … . “A court is generally limited to noticed issues that are the subject of the motion before it” … . … The plaintiffs did not move for an injunction … and the court did not hold a hearing … . City of New York v Quadrozzi, 2020 NY Slip Op 07857, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE BANK’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THEREFORE MUST BE RAISED AS A DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint in this foreclosure action on the ground the bank did not comply with the notice requirements of RPAL 1304. The defendants defaulted and failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore it must be raised as a defense before a judge can rule on it:

In this action to foreclose a mortgage, in which the defendants failed to appear or answer the complaint, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference, and should not have, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint based on its determination that the plaintiff failed to establish that it complied with RPAPL 1304 … . Therefore, a plaintiff is not required to disprove the defense unless it is raised by defendants, and in this case the defendants failed to appear in the action or answer the complaint … . Chase Home Fin., LLC v Guido, 2020 NY Slip Op 07854, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH RPAPL 1320-a, ENACTED WHILE THIS APPEAL WAS PENDING, HAS CHANGED THINGS, THE DEFENDANTS’ LACK-OF-STANDING DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THEIR ANSWERS OR PRE-ANSWER MOTIONS; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum with an extensive concurring opinion, determined the defendants in the foreclosure action had waived the lack-of-standing defense by not raising it in their answers or pre-answer motions. The court noted that Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1320-a, which was enacted when this appeal was pending, may allow standing to be raised “at this stage of the litigation:”

… Supreme Court did not err in granting plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Defendants failed to raise standing in their answers or in pre-answer motions as required by CPLR 3211 (e) and accordingly, under the law in effect at the time of the orders appealed from, the defense was waived … . Defendants’ argument that ownership is an essential element of a foreclosure action, raised for the first time in support of their motion for reargument at the Appellate Division, is unpreserved for our review. We do not reach the issue of whether RPAPL 1302-a, enacted while this appeal was pending, affords defendants an opportunity to raise standing at this stage of the litigation. Defendants are free to apply to the trial court for any relief that may be available to them under that statute. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Caliguri, 2020 NY Slip Op 07660, CtApp 12-17-20

 

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