You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; EVIDENCE OFFERED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE OPPOSING PARTY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate it had complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. The court noted that evidence submitted in reply was properly considered because the opposing party had an opportunity to respond:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. RPAPL 1304(1) provides that at least 90 days before a lender, an assignee, or a mortgage loan servicer commences an action to foreclose the mortgage on a home loan as defined in RPAPL 1304, such lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer must give notice to the borrower. RPAPL 1304(1) sets forth the requirements for the content of such notice and RPAPL 1304(2) further provides that such notice must be sent “by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail” to the last known address of the borrower. “[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … .

Here, even considering the affidavit of Victoria Bressner submitted by the plaintiff for the first time in opposition to the defendant’s cross motion, the plaintiff failed to establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. Bressner did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing and did not make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures to establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Moreover, the record indicates that the notices were not mailed by the plaintiff. LNV Corp. v Sofer, 2019 NY Slip Op 02860, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRECONDITIONS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the court was without power to dismiss for neglect to prosecute because the preconditions in CPLR 3216 were not met. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint in this foreclosure action, finding that plaintiff bank had not complied with an oral directive issued at a status conference:

Following settlement conferences held pursuant to CPLR 3408, the action was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part without any resolution. In an order … (hereinafter the dismissal order), the Supreme Court directed dismissal of the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with an oral directive issued at a status conference … , to resume prosecution of the action. …[T]he plaintiff moved to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the calendar. [T]he Supreme Court … denied the plaintiff’s motion. …

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the statutory preconditions to dismissal, as articulated in CPLR 3216, are met” … . Specifically, issue must have been joined, at least one year must have elapsed since joinder of issue, the defendant or the court must have served on the plaintiff a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days, and the plaintiff must have failed to serve and file a note of issue within the 90-day period (see CPLR 3216[b] …). Here, the Supreme Court was without power to direct dismissal of the action on the ground of failure to prosecute because the plaintiff was not served with a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Ferrari, 2019 NY Slip Op 02847, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

, ,

UNSIGNED DEPOSITIONS WERE ADMISSIBLE AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, although affirming the denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case on other grounds, noted that the depositions were admissible and evidence submitted in reply should have been considered:

Although the plaintiff’s deposition transcript, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, was unsigned, it was nonetheless admissible as the plaintiff raised no objection to its submission or accuracy and, in fact, requested that the Supreme Court “incorporate” his transcript into his opposition … . Regarding the deposition transcript of the decedent’s niece, which the defendants also submitted in support of their motion, the defendants demonstrated that they had submitted the unsigned transcript to the decedent’s niece for review, but that she failed to sign and return it within 60 days. Thus, the niece’s deposition transcript could have been used by the defendants as fully as though signed (see CPLR 3116[a] …). Furthermore, even though the evidence demonstrating the defendants’ compliance with CPLR 3116(a) was submitted by the defendants in reply, the court should have considered it, because it was in direct response to allegations raised for the first time in the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . The unsigned deposition transcript of the defendants’ property manager was admissible under CPLR 3116(a) since it was submitted by the defendants themselves and thus adopted as accurate … . Baptiste v Ditmas Park, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02844, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

,

DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRECLUDE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO MOVE FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WITHIN ONE YEAR AS REQUIRED BY KINGS COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the denial defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment did not preclude defendant’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure action based upon plaintiff bank’s failure to comply with Rule 8 (Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Rules) :

In August 2013, the plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against the defendant Andy McAlpin (hereinafter the defendant) and others. The defendant did not answer or appear in the action, and in February 2014, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference. In an order dated October 24, 2014, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff did not move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and in May 2016, the defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the order of reference and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that he had not been served with the summons and complaint, for leave to serve a late answer, and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with Part F, rule 8, of the Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rules (hereinafter Rule 8). Rule 8 requires a plaintiff in a foreclosure action to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure within one year of entry of the order of reference. …

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant was not precluded from seeking relief under Rule 8 by the denial of that branch of his motion which was to vacate his default … . Bank of Am., N.A. v McAlpin,b2019 NY Slip Op 02843, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the case for neglect to prosecute in the absence of the prerequisites mandated by CPLR 3216:

… [T]he court directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue within 90 days, and warned that “[i]f plaintiff does not file a note of issue within 90 days this action is deemed dismissed without further order of the Court (CPLR 3216).” Five months later … the court, sua sponte, in effect, directed dismissal of the action … . …

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the statutory preconditions to dismissal, as articulated in CPLR 3216, are met” … . “Effective January 1, 2015, the Legislature amended, in several significant respects, the statutory preconditions to dismissal under CPLR 3216” … . One such precondition is that where, as here, a written demand to resume prosecution of the action is made by the court, “the demand shall set forth the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” … . Here, the certification order did not set forth any specific conduct constituting neglect by the plaintiff … .

Additionally, before issuing an order dismissing the case based on a party’s failure to comply with the 90-day demand, the court must give the party notice so that the party has an opportunity to “show a justifiable excuse for the delay and a good and meritorious cause of action” … . Here, the Supreme Court failed to give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to, in effect, directing dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 … . Sadowski v W. David Harmon, 2019 NY Slip Op 02918, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

, , ,

MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW MADE DURING JURY SELECTION WAS PREMATURE, GRANTING THE MOTION ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS VIOLATED THE LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer on spoliation grounds in this medical malpractice and wrongful death action, made during jury selection, should not have been granted. It was not a proper motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 and the ruling violated the law of the case:

During jury selection, the plaintiff made an oral application, in effect, to strike the defendant’s answer and for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability based on the defendant’s alleged spoliation of evidence relating to certain telemetry strips and the defendant’s failure to perform an autopsy on the decedent. In opposition, the defendant argued, among other things, that the Supreme Court had previously denied that branch of a prior motion by the plaintiff which was to strike the defendant’s answer based on the defendant’s alleged spoliation of evidence. …

“A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the grant of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . Here, the plaintiff’s oral application, which was made during jury selection, was not based on any admissions by the defendant, and the Supreme Court should not have considered the merits of the plaintiff’s application at that juncture … .

“The doctrine of the law of the case’ is a rule of practice, an articulation of sound policy that, when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned” … . The doctrine forecloses reexamination of an issue previously determined by a court of coordinate jurisdiction “absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or a change in the law” … .

Here, the Supreme Court violated the doctrine of law of the case by disregarding the prior order denying that branch of the plaintiff’s earlier motion which was to strike the defendant’s answer based upon the same evidentiary issues … . Fishon v Richmond Univ. Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 02682. Second Dept 4-10-19

 

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS AMBIVALENT ABOUT WHEN HE WAS SERVED, THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND, IT IS PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE A DEFENDANT WAS TIMELY SERVED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint because defendant was not timely served should have been granted. The defendant was ambivalent about when he was served and the motion was denied on that ground. However, it is the plaintiff’s burden to prove when service was made:

… [T]he defendant Malka Hayut averred that she had been served on May 12, 2016, more than 120 days after the filing of the summons and complaint, and the defendant Meir Marc Hayut (hereinafter the appellant) averred only that he “may have been served” on May 12, 2016. … [T]he Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the defendants’ renewed motion … to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant [Meir], on the ground that the appellant was equivocal as to whether he was timely served.

The burden of proving that personal jurisdiction was acquired over a defendant rests with the plaintiff … . Although the failure to file an affidavit of service with the court pursuant to CPLR 308(4) is generally a procedural irregularity which may be cured … , in this case, the plaintiff did not cure the defect. In the absence of evidence that the appellant was properly served, that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted … . Deb v Hayut, 2019 NY Slip Op 02676, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint for neglect to prosecute without following the procedure required by CPLR 3216:

The Supreme Court should not have, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3216, sua sponte, dismissed the amended complaint, as the statutory preconditions to dismissal were not met … . A court cannot dismiss an action, sua sponte, pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) unless the conditions set forth in CPLR 3216(b) have been met, including the requirement that: “[t]he court or party seeking such relief . . . shall have served a written demand . . . requiring the party against whom such relief is sought to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within ninety days after receipt of such demand, and further stating 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” (CPLR 3216[b][3] [emphasis added] …). Moreover, the court should not have administratively dismissed the amended complaint without further notice to the parties … . Marinello v Marinello, 2019 NY Slip Op 02697, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

,

PURSUANT TO AN EXCEPTION IN 22 NYCRR 202.5-b, USING THE NYSCEF ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM DID NOT CONSTITUTE PROPER SERVICE OF A NOTICE OF ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS, THE TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER THEREFORE NEVER STARTED TO RUN AND DEFENDANTS WERE NOT IN DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a notice of entry in this foreclosure action, although the NYSCEF electronic filing system was used, was not properly served and therefore defendants’ time to answer never started running and defendants were not in default:

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, since the plaintiff never served the Dedvukaj defendants with notice of entry of the June 2015 order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint, their answer was timely served, as their time to answer never started to run (see CPLR 3211[f] …). …

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.5-b, the court rule governing electronic filing for the Supreme Court, a party may serve an interlocutory document upon another party by filing the document electronically: “Upon receipt of [the] interlocutory document, the NYSCEF site shall automatically transmit electronic notification to all e-mail service addresses in such action . . . . Except as provided otherwise in subdivision (h)(2) of this section, the electronic transmission of the notification shall constitute service of the document on the e-mail service addresses identified therein” … .

Subdivision (h)(2), which appears in a subsection entitled “Entry of Orders and Judgments and Notice of Entry,” provides, in relevant part: “[a] party may serve [an order or judgment and written notice of its entry] electronically by filing them with the NYSCEF site and thus causing transmission by the site of notification of receipt of the documents, which shall constitute service . . . by the filer. In the alternative, a party may serve a copy of the order or judgment and written notice of its entry in hard copy by any method set forth in CPLR 2103(b)(1) to (6). If service is made in hard copy by any such method and a copy of the order or judgment and notice of its entry and proof of such hard copy service are thereafter filed with the NYSCEF site, transmission by NYSCEF of notification of receipt of those documents shall not constitute additional service of the notice of entry on the parties to whom the notification is sent” … . JBBNY, LLC v Dedvukaj, 2019 NY Slip Op 02692, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

, ,

ALLEGATIONS THAT A POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR THE DISMISSAL OF COUNTERCLAIMS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING FRAUD, DURESS, COERCION AND UNCONSCIONABILITY DISCUSSED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, dealt with the analytical criteria for motions to dismiss counterclaims and affirmative defenses in the context of a postnuptial agreement which was alleged to have been tainted by fraud, coercion, duress and unconscionability. The “unconscionable” allegations survived the dismissal motion. The decision covers all these substantive and procedural issues in some depth and cannot, therefore, be fairly summarized here:

An unconscionable agreement is “one such as no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense” … . Because of the fiduciary relationship between spouses, postnuptial agreements “are closely scrutinized by the courts, and such agreements are more readily set aside in equity under circumstances that would be insufficient to nullify an ordinary contract”  … . “To warrant equity’s intervention, no actual fraud need be shown, for relief will be granted if the [agreement] is manifestly unfair to a spouse because of the other’s overreaching” … . “Although courts may examine the terms of the agreement as well as the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether there has been overreaching, the general rule is that [if] the execution of the agreement . . . be fair, no further inquiry will be made'” … .

Here, at this stage of the action, the defendant’s pleadings, as amplified by his submissions in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion and in support of his cross motion … , are sufficient to allege both procedural and substantive unconscionability. Shah v Mitra, 2019 NY Slip Op 02739, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

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