You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , , ,

REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN FROM MOTHER’S CARE WITHOUT NOTICE DEPRIVED MOTHER OF HER RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the removal of the children from mother’s care without notice violated mother’s due process rights. In addition, the evidence did not support the removal:

… [P]ursuant to a dispositional order, the children were released to their mother’s care with ACS [Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services] supervision. ACS moved pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061 to extend the period of supervision. Family Court violated the mother’s due process rights when, on the return date of the motion, it sua sponte removed the children without giving the mother notice or an opportunity to be heard and, at a later hearing, effectively imposed upon the mother the burden of showing that the removal was unwarranted … . There was nothing in the language of the agency’s motion to put the mother on notice that the children might be removed from her care on the return date, and the record demonstrates that the mother was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue … . Moreover, the agency maintained that it was in the children’s best interests to remain with the mother, and the children’s attorney supported the agency’s position.

Furthermore, Family Court’s decision to continue the children’s placement in the agency’s care until the next placement hearing was not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record …  Contrary to the court’s conclusion, neither the initial neglect petition nor the order to show cause alleged that the mother used illicit substances or was impaired while taking care of the children. Moreover, during the 10-month period of supervision in 2023—2024, the mother submitted to at least three random drug screenings and tested negative for all illicit substances. When the mother underwent an evaluation by a credentialed alcohol and substance abuse counselor on February 1, 2024, she was not found to need any drug treatment services. Matter of E.I. (Eboniqua M.), 2025 NY Slip Op 00022, First Dept 1-2-25

Practice Point: Here removal of the children from mother’s care without prior notice to mother violated her due process rights. Removal was not supported by the evidence.

 

, ,

PROOF THE MORTGAGE WAS ASSIGNED TO PLAINTIFF WITHOUT PROOF THE NOTE WAS ALSO ASSIGNED BEFORE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate it had standing to foreclosure. Plaintiff proved the assignment of the mortgage to it, but did not prove the assignment of the note. In addition, plaintiff did not prove it physically possessed the note which had been indorsed to it:

While plaintiff’s papers established that the original noteholder, nonparty Realty Closing Solution LLC, assigned the note to nonparty 1Sharpe Opportunity Intermediate Trust (1Sharpe) on June 24, 2019, plaintiff did not establish that 1Sharpe assigned the note to plaintiff before this action was commenced. Instead, plaintiff established that 1Sharpe assigned the mortgage to plaintiff. Without also assigning the note, the assignment of the mortgage, by itself, is of no incident because “a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity” … . …

… [P]laintiff did not establish that it physically possessed the note indorsed to it. Plaintiff relies on an allonge from 1Sharpe included with the note in the complaint. However, plaintiff furnished no evidence, either by producing the physical note or through the attestations of its affiant … that this allonge, which was indorsed in blank, was “firmly affixed” to the note (UCC 3-202[2]…). 1S REO Opportunity 1, LLC v Harlem Premier Residence, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00016, First Dept 1-2-25

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff demonstrated the mortgage was assigned to it but did not demonstrate the note was assigned to it before the action was commenced. Therefore the plaintiff did not prove it had standing to foreclose.

 

, , ,

THE DEATH OF A PARTY DIVESTS THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, STAYS THE PROCEEDINGS AND TERMINATES THE REPRESENTATION OF THE DECEASED’S ATTORNEY; ANY ORDERS ISSUED OR APPEALS TAKEN ARE VACATED OR DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that the death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and terminates the representation of the attorney for the deceased person:

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015 (a)[, and] any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity” … . Here, the Supreme Court erred in considering the separate motions of the LMB defendants and Bear Stearns pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them because the motions were made after [plaintiff] Roe’s death and prior to any substitution of a personal representative of his estate (see id. § 1015 …). Accordingly, so much of the order … as granted the separate motions of the LMB defendants … to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them must be vacated as a nullity (see CPLR 1015 …), and the appeal taken by the plaintiff Cheryl Lee from so much of the order … granting those branches of the LMB defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the first, third, and sixth causes of action must be dismissed.

Furthermore, the death of a party also terminates an attorney’s authority to act on behalf of the deceased party … . Thus, Roe’s former attorneys lacked the authority to file either the cross-motion or this appeal on his behalf. Accordingly the appeal purportedly taken on Roe’s behalf must be dismissed … . Lee v Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 06624, Second Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction, stays the proceedings until a substitution is made, and terminates the representation of the attorney for the deceased. Any orders issued or appeals taken after the party’s death and before substitution must be vacated or dismissed.​

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF SUED THE COUNTY SHERIFF SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL COURT WHICH ISSUES A SECURING ORDER FOR A NONQUALIFYING OFFENSE VIOLATES THE ACCUSED’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THERE WAS NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERY INVOLVING THE SHERIFF WHO IS BOUND TO OBEY A COURT’S SECURING ORDER; THE REAL DISPUTE IS WITH THE COURT WHICH ISSUES THE ORDER IN APPARENT VIOLATION OF A STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the declaratory judgment action, determined there was no justiciable controversy. Plaintiff sued the County Sheriff seeking a declaration that “assigning a local court to arraign a criminal defendant with two previous felony convictions violates the constitutional rights of the accused because local courts lack the ability to order release or set bail under those circumstances.” The issue arose because of a conflict among provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law:

… City Court issued a securing order that committed [defendant] to the custody of the Sheriff on the basis of CPL 530.20 (2) (a) (double predicate provision). The double predicate provision states that a city, town, or village court (hereinafter, local court) may not order release on recognizance or bail when the criminal defendant, like plaintiff, has two previous felony convictions. Plaintiff further alleged that the double predicate provision conflicts with CPL 510.10 (4) (qualifying offense provision), which limits the court’s ability to issue a securing order imposing bail or remand to situations in which the criminal defendant stands charged with an enumerated qualifying offense (see also CPL 510.10 [3]). * * *

We conclude that plaintiff’s allegations fail to “demonstrate the existence of a bona fide justiciable controversy” inasmuch as there is no “real dispute between adverse parties, involving substantial legal interests for which a declaration of rights will have some practical effect” … . … “[T]he heart of the dispute is not any action taken by the Sheriff but rather whether the local . . . court must remand a given [criminal] defendant such as [plaintiff] to the custody of the Sheriff.” * * * Plaintiff’s real dispute is with the local court that issues a securing order ostensibly in violation of the qualifying offense provision, not with the Sheriff who is bound to obey the securing order. Where, as here, “there is no genuine dispute between the parties, the courts are precluded, as a matter of law, from issuing a declaratory judgment” … . Parker v Hilton, 2024 NY Slip Op 06456, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s dispute was not with the Sheriff, who is bound to obey a securing order, but was with the local court that issued the securing order which ostensibly violated a statute and the accused’s constitutional rights. Therefore there was no justiciable controversy between plaintiff and the Sheriff.

 

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS SUSPENDED DURING THE COVID TOLLS, RENDERING THE ACTION TIMELY (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall action was timely brought because the running of the statute of limitations was suspended during the COVID tolls:

On March 20, 2020, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8, which tolled “any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state, including but not limited to . . . the civil practice law and rules” … . Then-Governor Cuomo issued a series of nine subsequent executive orders that extended the tolling period, eventually through November 3, 2020 … . “A toll does not extend the statute of limitations indefinitely but merely suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for a finite and, in this instance, readily identifiable time period” … . “[T]he period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the time in which the plaintiff can commence an action” … .

Here, 651 days of the 1,096-day limitation period had elapsed by the time the toll began on March 20, 2020. Upon the expiration of the toll on November 3, 2020, the remaining 445 days of the limitation period began to run again, expiring on January 22, 2022. Thus, the action was timely commenced on June 17, 2021 … . Jackson v Goodfellas Pizzeria, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 06454, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: The COVID tolls suspended the running of statutes of limitations from March 20, 2020, to November 3, 2020.

 

, ,

SMI, A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY, RAISED A SEQRA CHALLENGE TO A LOCAL LAW ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY IN THE TOWN OF SENECA FALLS; ALTHOUGH SMI ALLEGED THE NEW FACILITY WOULD CAUSE IT ECONOMIC LOSS, SMI DID NOT ALLEGE IT WOULD SUFFER ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY; THEREFORE SMI DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LOCAL LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined SMI, the owner of a solid waste management facility, did not have standing to challenge, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a local law allowing the construction of a solid waste management facility in the Town of Seneca Falls. SMI’s claim it would suffer economic loss if the new facility is constructed was not enough to confer standing:

Those seeking to raise a SEQRA challenge must establish both “an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and . . . that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA” … .

… Although “[a] property owner in nearby proximity to premises that are the subject of [an agency] determination may have standing to seek judicial review without pleading and proving special damages, because adverse effect or aggrievement can be inferred from the proximity” … , the “status of neighbor does not . . . automatically provide the entitlement . . . to judicial review in every instance” … . The petitioner must also establish “that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected by the statute” … .

Here, SMI failed to establish, or even allege, that it had suffered or would suffer an environmental injury. SMI submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of its managing director, who averred only that SMI would suffer economic injuries if the local law was not annulled. Although SMI, as the owner of a solid waste management facility, is entitled to a presumption that it would, in fact, suffer such economic harm, it failed to establish that it has standing to raise a SEQRA challenge because economic injury does not fall within the zone of interest SEQRA seeks to protect … . Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v Town of Seneca Falls, 2024 NY Slip Op 06435, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: To demonstrate standing, a party bringing a SEQRA challenge must demonstrate an environmental injury which is in some way different from that of the public at large. Here no environmental injury was alleged. Therefore standing was not demonstrated.

 

,

THE CHOICE OF FORUM CLAUSE (ARIZONA) IN THE CONTRACT IS ENFORCEABLE AND IS NOT AFFECTED BY AN ARGUMENT QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF A CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE; THE FACT THAT THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO TRAVEL TO ARIZONA DOES NOT AFFECT THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE CHOICE OF FORUM CLAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the New York complaint based upon the choice of forum clause (Arizona) in the contract should have been granted. Plaintiff argued the contract was illegal under New York law. But a choice of forum clause is independent from a choice of law clause:

The contract between the parties provided that Arizona law would govern “the rights and obligations” of the parties under the contract. It further provided that all disputes arising out of the contract “shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state or federal courts sitting in Maricopa County, Arizona.” That forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless shown by plaintiff to be ” ‘unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court’ ” … .

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that the contract’s “pay-if-paid” provision, together with a provision prohibiting plaintiff from contacting clients of defendant, rendered the contract void as against public policy of New York. Plaintiff’s argument, however, “is misdirected [inasmuch as t]he issue [it] raise[s] is really one of choice of law, not choice of forum” … . ” ‘[O]bjections to a choice of law clause are not a warrant for failure to enforce a choice of forum clause’ ” … . Plaintiff has not shown that enforcement of the forum selection clause contravenes New York public policy … . Nor has plaintiff shown that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust or alleged that the clause was the result of fraud or overreaching … . Plaintiff’s further argument in opposition to the motion—i.e., that it would be a hardship for plaintiff’s owner to go to Arizona to litigate this dispute—is an insufficient basis on which to deny the motion … . The fact that New York may be a more convenient forum is immaterial inasmuch as defendant’s motion is based on the parties’ contract and not on the doctrine of forum non conveniens … . Prestige Lawn Care of WNY, LLC v Facilitysource, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06483, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of a choice of forum clause versus a choice of law clause versus the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE PREJUDICED BY THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS WHICH DID NOT ALTERNATE THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES; THE FIRST QUESTION POSED TO THE JURY EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED THE JURORS FROM CONSIDERING THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL ISSUE, I.E., WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the jury verdict and ordering a new trial in this Insurance Law 5102(d) “serious injury” case, determined the plaintiffs were prejudiced by the jury selection method used the trial judge, and the first question on the verdict sheet was improper because it effectively precluded the jury from considering the relevant question, whether plaintiff suffered a “serious injury:”

The court’s failure to alternate the peremptory challenge process … placed plaintiffs in the untenable position of having to utilize a peremptory challenge for a prospective juror that may not have been necessary had defendants been required to go first. This error compromised the fairness of the jury selection process.

Plaintiffs further contend that Supreme Court erred by including the first question on the verdict sheet — i.e., “[h]ave the plaintiffs . . . established that the incident . . . was a substantial factor in causing [Mormile’s] injuries?” We agree.  The specific issue for the jury to resolve was whether, as a result of the subject accident, Mormile sustained a “serious injury” as set forth in question 2 on the verdict sheet (did Mormile “sustain a significant limitation of use of a body function or system”); question 3 (did Mormile “sustain a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member”); question 4 (did Mormile “sustain a injury that resulted in a significant disfigurement”); and question 5 (did Mormile “suffer a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature . . . that prevented him from performing all of the material acts that constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident?”).

The first question effectively only asks whether there was probable cause to establish that Mormile’s injuries resulted from the accident (see PJI 2:70). Having answered “No” to that global question, the jury did not answer questions 2 through 5. In effect, the jury did not resolve the appropriate legal issue, i.e., whether Mormile sustained a “serious injury” in the accident, as defined under each of the four distinct categories at issue … . Mormile v Marshall, 2024 NY Slip Op 06390, Third Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: Failure to alternate the peremptory challenges compromised the fairness of the jury selection process.

Practice Point: The first question on the verdict sheet effectively precluded the jury from considering the appropriate legal issue, i.e., whether plaintiff suffered a “serious injury” within the meaning of the Insurance Law.

 

,

THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY COMMENCED WHEN THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WERE FILED IN 2013; THE COURT ERRED IN DEEMING THE ACTION COMMENCED WHEN THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WERE SERVED IN 2022 (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was timely, noting that the time the foreclosure action was commenced was when the summons and complaint were filed, not when they were served:

The sole issue this Court is tasked with addressing is whether the action was timely commenced. “An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [4]), which begins to run from the due date of each unpaid installment, from the date the mortgagee is entitled to demand full payment, or from the date the mortgage debt has been accelerated” … . Acceleration occurs when, among other things, a lender demands payment in full by commencing a foreclosure action … . The operative date for determining whether a claim was interposed within the limitations period is the date of commencement, and “an action is commenced upon the filing of the summons and complaint, not service” … .

Supreme Court incorrectly determined that plaintiff’s claim was interposed upon [defendant] Coppola when she was served with process in January 2022, rather than upon the filing of the summons and complaint in September 2013 … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v DiGioia, 2024 NY Slip Op 06403, Third Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: The foreclosure action was commenced when the summons and complaint were filed in 2013, not when they were served in 2022.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WILLFUL NEGLECT BY PLAINTIFF BANK OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST RESULTED IN THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this reforeclosure action:

Where the interest of a necessary party has not been foreclosed upon in a judgment of foreclosure and sale, the purchaser of the foreclosed property has two potential remedies: a strict foreclosure action pursuant to RPAPL 1352, or a reforeclosure action pursuant to RPAPL 1503. RPAPL 1503 provides … that, when real property has been sold at a foreclosure sale ‘and it appears from the public records or from the allegations of the complaint that such judgment, sale or conveyance was or may have been, for any reason, void or voidable as against any person, including an owner of the real property mortgaged, the purchaser . . . may maintain an action as provided in this article to determine the right of any person to set aside such judgment, sale or conveyance or to enforce an equity of redemption or to recover possession of the property, or the right of any junior mortgagee to foreclose a mortgage'” … . “[T]o prevail in a reforeclosure action, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defect in the original foreclosure action ‘was not due to fraud or wilful neglect of the [foreclosure] plaintiff and that the defendant or the person under whom he [or she] claims was not actually prejudiced thereby'” … .

Here, US Bank’s [plaintiff’s] predecessor in interest allowed the notice of pendency in the foreclosure action to lapse. During that lapse, Wilkshire obtained and recorded title to the property by a referee’s deed pursuant to the foreclosure of a lien for unpaid homeowners association dues. Subsequently, US Bank filed a new notice of pendency, which was not served upon Wilkshire. Thereafter, US Bank obtained an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale in the foreclosure action. On its motion for summary judgment in the instant action, US Bank failed to submit any evidence to establish, prima facie, that the defect in the foreclosure action was not due to willful neglect by itself or by its predecessors in interest. Thus, US Bank failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . U.S. Bank N.A. v 18 Wilkshire Circle, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06372, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some discussion of the remedies of “strict foreclosure” and “reforeclosure” under the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) where there was some defect in the original foreclosure proceedings.

 

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