You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

THE BANK’S UNILATERAL ATTEMPT TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IS PRECLUDED BY THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PROTECTION ACT (FAPA) WHICH APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO THIS CASE; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a letter from the bank in this foreclosure action purporting to revoke a prior acceleration of the debt did not stop the running of the six-year statute of limitations. The action was therefore time-barred. The Second Department noted that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), effective December 30, 2022, applies retroactively to this case. The FAPA essentially provides that once the debt is accelerated the six-year statute of limitations keeps running despite any attempt to “unilaterally waive, postpone, cancel, toll, revive or reset the accrual” of the foreclosure action:

Applying FAPA here, the revocation letter did not de-accelerate the mortgage debt nor did it “revive or reset” the statute of limitations … . Since the plaintiff commenced this action more than six years after the initial acceleration of the mortgage debt, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred (see CPLR 213[4] …). US Bank Trust, N.A. v Horowitz, 2025 NY Slip Op 03095, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: Here the bank attempted to revoke a prior acceleration of the debt by sending defendants a “revocation letter.” The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), which applies retroactively to this case, rendered the attempted revocation a nullity. Therefore the letter did not stop the running of the six-year statute of limitations and the foreclosure action was time-barred.​

 

, ,

HERE A DISPUTE AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY WAS RESOLVED BY AN OPEN COURT STIPULATION (CONTRACT) WHICH CANNOT BE INVALIDATED ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION, MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE APPROVING THE SUBSEQUENT APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY A RECEIVER WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the receiver’s (Hafner’s) apportionment of the proceeds of the sale of real property owned by several brothers was inconsistent with the open court stipulation which had attempted to resolve the dispute before the receiver was appointed. Absent fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, a stipulation (contract) should not be invalidated. Therefore, Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether there are grounds for avoiding the terms of the stipulation:

Supreme Court should have held an evidentiary hearing before approving Hafner’s amended final report and account based on the factual issues raised by the parties and the contentious nature of the proceedings … . “Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside . . . Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” … . Here, Hafner’s amended final report and account was confirmed without the off-the-top credits owed to John and Thomas pursuant to the stipulation. Further, the amended final report and account allocated receivership costs for insurance that were inconsistent with the allocation of costs agreed to in the stipulation.

Additionally, a hearing is necessary to calculate Hafner’s commissions and to determine whether special circumstances exist warranting a recovery in excess of five percent of the sums received and disbursed … . CPLR 8004 allows a receiver to be paid commissions for his or her work “‘not exceeding five percent of sums received and disbursed by him or her'” … . Feeney v Giannetti, 2025 NY Slip Op 03043, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: An open court stipulation is a contract which cannot be invalidated absent fraud, collusion, mistake or accident. Here the apportionment of disputed property by the receiver was inconsistent with the stipulation. The court, therefore, should not have upheld the receiver’s apportionment without holding a hearing to determine whether there exist grounds for invalidating the stipulation.

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO THE “INTERNAL AFFAIRS” DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF, A NEW YORK CORPORATION AND BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES IN BARCLAYS, AN ENGLISH CORPORATION, DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING A DERIVATIVE SUIT ON BEHALF OF BARCLAYS AGAINST OFFICERS AND MANAGERS OF A NEW YORK AFFILIATE OF BARCLAYS IN NEW YORK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a comprehensive dissenting opinion, determined that the Business Corporation Law (BCL)  (sections 626(a) and 1319(a)(2)) has not displaced the “internal affairs” doctrine, a choice-of-law rule providing that the substantive law of the place of incorporation governs disputes about the rights and relationships of corporate shareholders and managers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ rulings that plaintiff, a New York corporation and a beneficial owner of shares in England-based Barclays, did not have standing to sue, on behalf of Barclays, directors and officers of Barclays New York-based affiliate in New York:

The corporation at the center of this appeal is Barclays PLC (Barclays), a bank holding company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales and headquartered in London. Plaintiff Ezrasons, Inc. is a New York corporation and a beneficial owner of Barclays shares. In 2021, plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of Barclays against almost four-dozen current and former Barclays directors and officers and a New York-based affiliate, Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI). The complaint alleged that the individual defendants, aided and abetted by BCI, breached fiduciary duties owed to Barclays under English law, causing significant injuries to the company. * * *

Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, explaining that under the internal affairs doctrine, foreign law governs the question of whether a plaintiff has the right to sue corporate management on behalf of a foreign corporation. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the legislature intended to override that choice-of-law rule when it enacted sections 626 (a) and 1319 (a) (2) of the BCL, agreeing with four decades of case law holding that those provisions “simply confer[] jurisdiction upon New York courts over derivative suits on behalf of out-of-state corporations, but do[ ] not require application of New York law in such suits” … .

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, agreeing with Supreme Court that plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this shareholder derivative action on behalf of Barclays … . … [T]he Appellate Division rejected plaintiff’s argument that sections 626 (a) and 1319 (a) (2) displace the internal affairs doctrine and preclude application of English standing law … . Ezrasons, Inc. v Rudd, 2025 NY Slip Op 03008, CtApp 5-20-25

Practice Point: Business Corporation Law sections 626(a) and 1319(a)(2) do not displace the “internal affairs” doctrine which provides that the substantive law of the place of incorporation (England in this case) governs disputes about the rights and relationships of corporate shareholders and managers. Here a New York corporation which holds shares of an English corporation could not sue the officers and managers of a New York affiliate of the English corporation in New York.​

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF HAD POSSESSION OF THE NOTE PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate standing in this foreclosure action. The affidavit submitted to demonstrate plaintiff had possession of the note prior to commencing the action was hearsay:

… [T]he plaintiff relied on Harris’s affidavit to demonstrate that it had possession of the note prior to commencing this action. Harris averred, in relevant part, that the plaintiff received physical delivery of the original note on September 5, 2013. As the defendant correctly notes, Harris failed to attach any business record to her affidavit to demonstrate that fact or to aver that she had personal knowledge of the physical delivery of the note. Accordingly, Harris’s averment that the plaintiff had possession of the note prior to the commencement of this action was inadmissible hearsay and insufficient to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s standing … . Nationstar Mortage, LLC v Guarino, 2025 NY Slip Op 02925, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Whoever submits an affidavit stating the plaintiff in a foreclosure action had possession of the note before the action was commenced must attach a probative business record or demonstrate personal knowledge of the delivery of the note, not the case here.

 

, , , , ,

THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL; THE DEFENDANT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SEEK A STAY PENDING APPEAL; THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY, FILED BY THE BANK AT THE OUTSET OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, WAS STILL IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE DID NOT AFFECT THE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO A GOOD FAITH PURCHASER AT THE FORECLOSURE SALE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, determined the defendant in the foreclosure action, Yesmin, upon reversal of the judgment of foreclosure and sale on appeal, was not entitled to cancel and discharge the referee’s deed transferring title to a good faith purchaser of the foreclosed property. It is significant here that the defendant in the foreclosure action did not seek a stay pending appeal. The notice of pendency, filed by the bank in the foreclosure action, which was still in effect at the time of the foreclosure sale, did not affect the title acquired by the good faith purchaser:

This appeal raises the question of what effect an extant notice of pendency has on the title to real property acquired by a third party from a judicial foreclosure sale when the judgment of foreclosure and sale is reversed on the appeal of a defendant to the foreclosure action. For the reasons that follow, we hold that a notice of pendency that was unexpired at the time of the foreclosure sale has no effect on the title acquired by a good faith purchaser for value from a sale conducted pursuant to the judgment of foreclosure and sale. * * *

Once a judgment is entered, the need to obtain a stay pending appeal in order to protect the right to restitution of the property is shared equally by a defendant or a plaintiff against whom the judgment is entered. Where a judgment has been entered against a plaintiff, “the plaintiff’s right to impair the marketability of the property during the pendency of an appeal [is conditioned] upon the issuance of a discretionary CPLR 5519(c) stay” … . Thus, regardless of whether the judgment is issued in favor of a defendant or the plaintiff, once a judgment is entered, a stay is necessary to protect the property, and in the absence of a stay, the winning party is free to transfer the property as it sees fit. * * *

Since [the good faith purchaser of the foreclosed property] established that it is “a purchaser in good faith and for value” whose title would be affected by restitution of Yesmin’s property rights lost by the judgment of foreclosure and sale, Yesmin may not seek restitution by canceling the referee’s deed and, instead, is limited to monetary relief against the plaintiff to the foreclosure action (CPLR 5523 …). Yesmin v Aliobaba, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02964, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: If the defendant in a foreclosure action which is appealed does not seek a stay pending appeal, the reversal on appeal does not affect title transferred to a good faith purchaser at the foreclosure sale.

 

, , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, THE ALLEGED FREQUENCY OF THE ABUSE BY A TEACHER RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ABUSE AND WHETHER ITS SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS NEGLIGENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this Child Victims Act action alleging the negligent hiring, retention and supervision of a teacher, as well as negligent supervision of plaintiff student, should not have been dismissed. The defendant school district did not eliminate questions of fact about whether it had constructive notice of the abuse based upon the alleged frequency of the abuse:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . Considering, among other things, the frequency of the alleged abuse, which occurred over the course of two school years, inter alia, in a classroom and inside the teacher’s vehicle, the defendants did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they should have known of the alleged abuse … . The defendants also failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that their supervision of both the teacher and the plaintiff was not negligent … . Trunco v Eastport- S. Manor Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 02951, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: In a Child Victims Act action against a teacher, allegations of the frequency and the locations of the abuse of a student may be sufficient to raise questions of fact about whether the school district had constructive notice of the abuse and whether the supervision of the student was negligent.

 

A SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES WILL BE DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, dismissing the cause of action for punitive damages, noted that “a separate cause of action for punitive damages is not legally cognizable…”. Domen Holding Co. v Sanders, 2025 NY Slip Op 02871, First Dept 5-13-25

 

 

 

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S TRANSLATED AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE TRANSLATOR’S AFFIDAVIT AND WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE; THE ROADWAY WHERE THE COLLISION OCCURRED WAS NOT DIVIDED INTO TWO OR MORE CLEARLY MARKED LANES; THEREFORE THE “UNSAFE LANE CHANGE” STATUTE (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1128(A)) DID NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been awarded to plaintiff in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff submitted his affidavit which had been translated but did not submit an affidavit from the translator attesting to the translator’s qualifications and the accuracy of plaintiff’s affidavit. In addition, the roadway where the accident occurred was not divided into two or more clearly marked lanes. Therefore the unsafe-lane-change provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law did not apply to the facts:

In support of his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted his translated affidavit and dashcam footage from defendants’ vehicle. He argued that defendant driver made an unsafe lane change in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a), which provides that “[w]henever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic . . . [a] vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.”

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate his entitlement to summary judgment. His affidavit, which was not accompanied by an affidavit from a translator attesting to the translator’s qualifications and the accuracy of the affidavit, does not comply with CPLR 2101(b) and is therefore inadmissible … . Even if the affidavit could be considered, the dashcam video does not “conclusively establish” that defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128(a) or eliminate issues of fact as to how the accident occurred … .

The dashcam video shows that Zerega Avenue was not divided into lanes in the southbound direction, and that neither vehicle was driving within a “clearly marked” lane of traffic when plaintiff’s vehicle drove up on the right side of defendants’ tractor-trailer. Moreover, the dashcam footage does not establish that defendant driver caused the accident by moving into plaintiff’s lane of traffic when it was not safe to do so. Richards v Walls, 2025 NY Slip Op 02889, First Dept 5-13-25

Practice Point: Where an affidavit submitted to support a summary judgment motion has been translated, it is not admissible unless it is accompanied by the translator’s affidavit attesting the the translator’s qualifications and the accuracy of the translation.

Practice Point: The unsafe-lane-change statute, Vehicle and Traffic Law 1128(a), does not apply unless there are two or more clearly marked lanes of travel.

 

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL WERE NOT MET HERE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was not precluded by judicial estoppel from seeking attorney’s fees deemed uncollectible in a bankruptcy proceeding:

Supreme Court incorrectly dismissed the complaint on the ground that judicial estoppel bars plaintiff from seeking attorneys’ fees that were deemed uncollectible in a bankruptcy proceeding. Judicial estoppel applies where it is shown that a debtor omitted or concealed the existence of an asset and later brought suit to collect on that asset … . Here, the court made no such findings, and in fact assumed that plaintiff had not misled the bankruptcy trustee. Nor does the record establish that plaintiff obtained a benefit in the bankruptcy proceeding by taking one position in that proceeding and then assuming a contrary position in this action “simply because [his] interest changed” … . We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleague that the record establishes that plaintiff unequivocally adopted a conflicting legal position to obtain a bankruptcy discharge. Bohn v Tekulsky, 2025 NY Slip Op 02848, First Dept 5-8-25

Practice Point: In the context of a bankruptcy proceeding, the doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a debtor from concealing the existence of an asset and subsequently bringing suit to collect on that asset. Although there was a dissent, the majority concluded plaintiff had not misled the bankruptcy court and therefore judicial estoppel did not apply.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT TO REMEDY DEFECTS IN THE COMPLAINT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVIT; THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging that defendants improperly influenced the decedent to name them as beneficiaries of two bank accounts should not have been dismissed. The allegations in the complaint were supplemented by plaintiff’s affidavit. The Second Department noted that the affidavit should have been considered in assessing the sufficiency of the complaint:

The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that it failed to state a cause of action. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which she made statements to supplement the causes of action alleged in the complaint. … Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion. …

“On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” … . “‘Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss'” … . Where a cause of action is based upon, inter alia, fraud, breach of trust, or undue influence, the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail (see CPLR 3016[b]).

Here, the Supreme Court should have considered the plaintiff’s affidavit to remedy any defects in the complaint when it assessed the defendants’ motion … . Rauch v Rauch, 2025 NY Slip Op 02802, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Here the court held that an affidavit submitted by the plaintiff to remedy defects in the complaint in response to a motion to dismiss should have been considered by the motion court. The complaint as supplemented by the affidavit was deemed to state a cause of action for undue influence.

 

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