You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW HIS OPPOSITION TO THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK HAD ORIGINALLY ALLEGED IT POSSESSED THE NOTE AND THEREFORE HAD STANDING TO FORECLOSE; SUBSEQUENTLY THE BANK SUBMITTED A LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to renew his opposition to the bank’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this foreclosure action. In support of its summary judgment motion the bank alleged it had standing based upon possession of the note. However, in support of the bank’s subsequent motion to confirm the referee’s report the bank submitted a lost note affidavit:

A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]), and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][3]).

Here, in support of his cross motion for leave to renew, the borrower had a reasonable justification for his failure to present the new facts in opposition to the original motion, since the plaintiff had previously—and unequivocally—represented that the original note was in Investors’ possession, and only later disclosed that the original note had in fact been lost, without providing any further details as to when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, and when the note was lost … .

Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the borrower’s cross motion for leave to renew and, upon renewal, denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the borrower, to strike his answer and counterclaims, and for an order of reference, based on unresolved issues of fact regarding the plaintiff’s standing … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v Barbery, 2020 NY Slip Op 04377, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

,

FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THE ENTIRE DEBT TIME-BARRED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED; IF SO, ONLY THOSE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS DUE WITHIN SIX YEARS OF THE START OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION ARE RECOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action on the entire debt was time-barred, but there was a question of fact whether the debt was de-accelerated such that the installment payments due during the six years prior to the commencement of the action were recoverable by the plaintiff bank (Chase):

… [T]he defendants demonstrated that the six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[4]) began to run on July 7, 2009, when Chase accelerated the mortgage debt and commenced the prior foreclosure action … . Since the plaintiff did not commence the instant foreclosure action until more than six years later, on January 28, 2016, the defendants sustained their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the action was untimely … .

… [T]he plaintiff tendered evidence that, in May 2015, it sent letters to each of the defendants that purported to de-accelerate the entire debt … . However, such evidence is sufficient only to raise a question of fact as to whether those causes of action that sought unpaid installments which accrued within the six-year period of limitations preceding the commencement of this action (see CPLR 213[4] …) are barred by the statute of limitations due to this alleged de-acceleration by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff failed to tender any evidence to rebut the defendants’ showing that the statute of limitations bars the causes of action relating to unpaid mortgage installments which accrued on or before January 27, 2010, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss those causes of action. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Miele, 2020 NY Slip Op 04422, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

, ,

THE SELLER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO EXERCISE AN OPTION IN THE RESTRICTED REMEDIES CLAUSE OF THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT BECAUSE THE BUYER NEVER DEMANDED SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, affirming Supreme Court and noting that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action may be brought at any time, determined the motion to dismiss this action for specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement was properly granted. The buyer argued it was entitled to specific performance because the seller was required to exercise one of the remedies described in the restricted remedies clause of the purchase agreement. The court disagreed and held the buyer never in fact demanded specific performance. Rather, the buyer indicated it would not close unless the seller remedied a tax misclassification and lowered the purchase price:

Supreme Court properly considered the seller’s post note of issue CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action because it can be made at any time (CPLR 3211[e]). Thus, CPLR 3212(a)’s requirement of demonstrating good cause for the delay does not apply … . * * *

… .[T]he buyer maintains that Supreme Court erred in dismissing that claim by misreading Mehlman v 592-600 Union Ave. Corp. (46 AD3d 338 [1st Dept 2007]) in applying the contract’s restricted remedy clause against it. That clause expressly and strictly limited the buyer to two remedies in the event the seller was unable to convey title to the premises pursuant to the terms of the contract: (i) terminate the contract and receive its down payment or (ii) consummate the transaction with a $25,000 credit to remedy any title issue. The buyer argues that our holdings in Mehlman and 101123 LLC v Solis Realty LLC (23 AD3d 107 [1st Dept 2005]) obligate the seller to concede the title defect and demand that the buyer exercise one of the options set forth in the restricted remedies clause at the closing, and that the seller’s failure to satisfy this obligation enables the buyer to maintain its specific performance claim. * * *

…  [A] seller unable to convey clear title for reasons contemplated in the parties’ contract is entitled to invoke the restricted remedies clause in response to a buyer’s demand for specific performance of the parties’ contractual terms. Here, the buyer’s allegations unmistakably demonstrate that it did not demand specific performance from the seller to convey title as alleged in the complaint, namely, by conveying title in accordance with the seller’s contractual representation that there were no negative tax issues associated with the premises. Instead, the buyer alleged in its complaint that it was ready, willing and able to close provided that the seller, inter alia, corrected the tax misclassification and reduced the purchase price to address the tax liabilities arising from the misclassification. In fact, the allegations underlying the claim demonstrate the complete absence of a demand for specific performance of the parties’ contract. Rather, according to those allegations, the buyer’s demand would result only if the seller did not comply with the buyer’s condition to close. These allegations, as a matter of law, demonstrate that the seller was not obligated to invoke the restricted remedies clause. Thus, under these circumstances, the buyer is precluded from seeking from the seller specific performance of their contract. M&E 73-75, LLC v 57 Fusion LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 04372, First Dept 7-30-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice and wrongful death causes of action on behalf of decedent should not have been dismissed as time-barred:

The plaintiff’s decedent died due to complications related to cancer on August 29, 2015. On May 26, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for wrongful death and medical malpractice against, among others, the defendants Forest Hills Hospital (hereinafter FHH) and Sergio Martinez, a physician (hereinafter together the defendants). As is relevant to these appeals, the complaint alleged negligent acts and omissions by the defendants related to the decedent’s hospitalization at FHH from July 30, 2013, to August 1, 2013. After joinder of issue, Martinez and FHH separately moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss, as time-barred, so much of the complaint as was based upon alleged acts of malpractice committed before November 26, 2013, insofar as asserted against each of them. … Supreme Court granted the defendants’ separate motions. …

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the statute of limitations barred causes of action to recover damages for medical malpractice that accrued prior to November 26, 2013 (i.e., 2½ years before the date the action was commenced), rather than February 28, 2013 (i.e., 2½ years before the date of the decedent’s death) (see EPTL 5-4.1 …). Since, at the time of his death, the decedent had a valid cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice based upon acts or omissions occurring on or after February 28, 2013, and since the wrongful death cause of action was commenced within two years of the date of his death, the wrongful death cause of action was timely commenced … . Accordingly, any causes of action to recover damages for medical malpractice that accrued on or after February 28, 2013 (i.e., within 2½ years of the decedent’s death), including the decedent’s July 2013 hospitalization, were timely. Further, the plaintiff then had one year from the decedent’s death to assert a cause of action alleging conscious pain and suffering (see CPLR 210[a]; …). Perez v Baez, 2020 NY Slip Op 04329, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

HEARSAY DID NOT PROVE BANK HAD STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence submitted by plaintiff bank to establish standing in this foreclosure action was inadmissible hearsay:

“… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a foreclosure specialist for Seterus, Inc. (hereinafter Seterus), which purports to be a subservicer for the Federal National Mortgage Association as assignee of the plaintiff as assignee of OneWest. The affidavit constitutes inadmissible hearsay, as the foreclosure specialist did not attest that he had personal knowledge of OneWest’s business practices and procedures … , or that any records provided by OneWest were incorporated into Seterus’s own records … , and also did not submit any documents to show that OneWest possessed the note at the time of the commencement of this action (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Since the foreclosure specialist also failed to establish a foundation to show that he had personal knowledge as to whether OneWest possessed the note prior to commencement of the action (see CPLR 3212[b] …), the plaintiff failed to establish its standing. The documents attached to the affirmation of counsel for the plaintiff are inadmissible hearsay as counsel failed to establish a foundation for admission of such documents as business records and the foreclosure specialist’s affidavit does not reference the records attached to counsel’s affirmation … . Moreover, even if a proper foundation for the admissibility of the business records had been established, the submitted documents do not show that OneWest had ownership of and the right to enforce the note at the time of the commencement of the action … . The plaintiff also failed to show OneWest’s standing based upon a purported written assignment of the mortgage from MERS [Mortgage Electronic Registration system] to OneWest, as the plaintiff did not demonstrate that MERS had the authority to assign the note …”. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v Schacker, 2020 NY Slip Op 04313, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS DID NOT REBUT THE SWORN ALLEGATIONS OF PROPER SERVICE AND MAILING OF THE SUMMONS, COMPLAINT AND REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1303 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the foreclosure action on the ground defendants were never served should not have been granted:

… [T]he affidavit of service contained sworn allegations reciting that service was made upon Simone Cohen at 4:48 p.m. on March 3, 2009, by delivering to her the summons, complaint, and notice required by RPAPL 1303 at the subject property. The affidavit of service included a description of Simone Cohen. Another affidavit of service of the same process server contained sworn allegations reciting that service was made upon Avi Cohen by delivering a copy of the relevant papers to “SIMONE COHEN (WIFE),” a person of suitable age and discretion, at 4:48 p.m. on March 3, 2009, at the subject property, “[s]aid premises being the Defendant’s dwelling place within the State of New York,” and described Simone Cohen as above. The process server further averred that on March 4, 2009, he mailed those documents to Avi Cohen at the address of the subject property “by depositing a true copy of the same in a postpaid, properly addressed envelope in a[n] official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post office.” Two additional affidavits of service recited that on March 4, 2009, copies of the summons were mailed to each defendant at the subject property.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendants’ submissions failed to rebut the affidavit of service, since they stated only that Simone Cohen could not have been present at the time of the alleged service since she picked up her children from school every Tuesday and that she could not have understood or answered the process server’s questions or understood the import of the legal papers since she was not proficient in English. The defendants’ conclusory and unsubstantiated submissions did not rebut the sworn allegation that a person fitting the physical description of Simone Cohen was present at the residence at the time and accepted service … . Moreover, Avi Cohen did not deny that he received the papers in the mail and thus did not overcome the inference of proper mailing that arose from the affidavit of service … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Cohen, 2020 NY Slip Op 04312, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

ABSENT PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER ON FATHER OR FATHER’S COUNSEL, THE TIME FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER NEVER BEGAN RUNNING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the time for filing objections to the order of the Support Magistrate never started to run because there was no evidence the order was served or mailed, notwithstanding father’s possession of the order:

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 439(e), objections to an order of a Support Magistrate must be filed within 30 days after the date on which the order is provided to the objecting party in court or by personal service, or within 35 days after the date in which the order is mailed to the objecting party … . When a party is represented by counsel, the 35-day time requirement does not begin to run until the final order is mailed to counsel … . Here, the father and the father’s prior counsel indicated that neither of them received the Support Magistrate’s order by either personal service or mail. In addition, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the Support Magistrate’s order was mailed or personally served on the father’s counsel. Since there is no evidence in the record indicating that the Support Magistrate’s order was personally served or mailed to the father’s counsel … , the time in which the father was required to file his objections never began to run … . Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the father’s actual possession of the Support Magistrate’s order, which prior counsel indicated was obtained from the Family Court record room, is not dispositive, as the time limitations of Family Court Act § 439(e) do not begin to run until service is effectuated in accordance therewith … . Hughes v Lugo, 2020 NY Slip Op 04308, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF-PEDESTRIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COURT CAN CONSIDER COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHERE, AS HERE, THE PLAINTIFF MOVES TO DISMISS THE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-pedestrian’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The court noted that evidence of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence, although no longer an impediment to summary judgment, can be considered by the court where the plaintiff moves to dismiss a comparative-negligence affirmative defense:

“A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries” … . “To be entitled to partial summary judgment a plaintiff does not bear the . . . burden of establishing . . . the absence of his or her own comparative fault” … . Even though a plaintiff is no longer required to establish his or her freedom from comparative negligence to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability, the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where, as here, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment dismissing a defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence … .

Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting, inter alia, her own affidavit, which demonstrated that she was walking within a crosswalk with the pedestrian signal in her favor when Martinez, who was attempting to make a left turn, failed to yield the right-of-way and struck her … . The plaintiff’s affidavit was also sufficient to establish, prima facie, that she was not at fault in the happening of the accident, as it demonstrated that she exercised due to care by confirming that she had the pedestrian signal in her favor and by looking for oncoming traffic in all directions before entering the crosswalk and that the collision occurred so suddenly that she could not avoid it … . Hai Ying Xiao v Martinez, 2020 NY Slip Op 04295, Second Dept 7-29-20

Similar issues and result in Maliakel v Morio, 2020 NY Slip Op 04298, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENTER AN ‘INFORMAL APPEARANCE’ IN AN ACTION WHICH WILL AVOID A DEFAULT, THE APPEARANCE MUST BE MADE WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMITS; THE PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed the default judgment granted to plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action. The court rejected the argument that defendant (Hall) had entered a valid “Informal appearance:”

It is true that “[i]n addition to the formal appearances listed in CPLR 320(a), the law continues to recognize the so-called informal’ appearance” … . “It comes about when the defendant, although not having taken any of the steps that would officially constitute an appearance under CPLR 320(a), nevertheless participates in the case in some way relating to the merits” … .

Although “an informal appearance can prevent a finding that the defendant is in default, thereby precluding entry of a default judgment” … , this is only true when the participation constituting the informal appearance occurred within the time limitations imposed for making a formal appearance … . Indeed, even service of a formal “notice of appearance will not protect the defendant from entry of a default judgment if, after service of the complaint, the defendant does not timely make a CPLR 3211 motion or serve an answer” … . Accordingly, an informal appearance, without more, does not somehow absolve a defendant from complying with the time restrictions imposed by CPLR 320(a) which govern the service of an answer or the making of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hall, 2020 NY Slip Op 04292, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

THE CERTIFICATION ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE WITHIN 90 DAYS WAS NOT A VALID 90-DAY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND THE CROSS-MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action should not have been dismissed for failure to file a note of issue because a valid 90-day notice had not been issued or served. The certification order issued by Supreme Court directing plaintiff to file a note of issue within 90 days did not meet the criteria for a 90-day notice required by CPLR 3216:

… [T]he record shows that neither the Supreme Court nor any of the defendants served, pursuant to CPLR 3216, a 90-day demand to file a note of issue on the plaintiff. … [A]lthough the court issued a certification order … directing the plaintiff to file the note of issue within 90 days of the order, it did not constitute a valid 90-day demand because it did not contain any language warning that the plaintiff’s failure to file the note of issue within 90 days would result in dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216 … . Additionally, the … certification order did not set forth specific conduct by the plaintiff constituting neglect … . Since the plaintiff was never served with a 90-day demand, the court should not have dismissed the complaint due to the plaintiff’s failure to file the note of issue … .

… [T]he Supreme Court could not rely upon CPLR 3126 as a basis upon which to dismiss the complaint as the plaintiff’s failure to timely file the note of issue or to move to extend the time to file the note of issue did not constitute disobedience of an “order for disclosure” (CPLR 3126 … ).

We also disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying the plaintiff’s cross motion, pursuant to CPLR 2004, to extend her time to file the note of issue. Discovery is complete and the defendants failed to establish that they were prejudiced by the plaintiff’s failure to timely file the note of issue and her delay in moving for an extension of time to do so … . Tolkoff v Goldstein, 2020 NY Slip Op 04341, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

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