You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT.

In another lawsuit stemming from the collapse of mortgage-backed securities, the First Department determined fraud causes of action by Aozora Bank against Deutsche Bank were properly dismissed as untimely. Investigations, including a Congressional investigation, into the relevant actions of Deutsche Bank were well-known more than two years before the suit was brought:

The parties do not dispute that plaintiff's fraud causes of action were not timely under New York's six-year limitations period and, to be timely, must have been commenced within two years from the time plaintiff discovered the fraud, or with reasonable diligence could have discovered it (CPLR 213[8]). * * *

… [O]ne of the most significant sources of public information putting plaintiff on notice of its fraud claims is the Senate Report and its associated emails, which actually form the centerpiece of plaintiff's complaint. In fact, the Senate Report contains a 45-page section on Deutsche Bank entitled “Running the CDO Machine: Case Study of Deutsche Bank.” Taken with all the other information available in the public domain, the Senate Report is more than sufficient to have placed Aozora on inquiry notice of possible fraud by April 2011 at the latest … . Aozora Bank, Ltd. v Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02511, 1st Dept 3-31-16

FRAUD (FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT)/SECURITIES (FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT)/MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT)

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE PROVISION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE DID NOT TOLL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RE: AN ACTION SEEKING TO RECOVER THE COST OF BUILDING MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CODE AFTER DEFENDANTS’ CONSTRUCTION OF A TALLER NEIGHBORING BUILDING.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendants' failure to give notice to plaintiff of their intent to increase the height of a neighboring building did not toll the statute of limitations. The suit concerned two provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. One provision required notice to neighboring property owners of construction to increase the height of a building. The other required the owner of the newly constructed building to increase the height of the chimneys of surrounding buildings to bring them back into conformance with the Administrative Code. Plaintiff was seeking to recover the cost of modifying its chimney which was rendered noncompliant by defendants' now taller neighboring building. The new construction was completed in 2007. The court held defendants' failure to notify plaintiff of the new construction did not excuse plaintiff's failure to bring an action within three years of the completion of the new construction:

Pursuant to the statutory language, plaintiff's claim accrued when defendants' building (1) was erected; (2) was sited within 100 feet of plaintiff's chimney; and (3) was increased in height so that it exceeded the height of plaintiff's chimney vent. Here, all the factual circumstances required to establish a right of action occurred by January 2007, when the work on the building had been substantially completed. The January 22, 2007 temporary certificate of occupancy (CO), issued by the Department of Buildings (DOB), certified that defendants' building was 20 stories tall and “conform[ed] substantially to the approved plans and specifications[,] and to the requirements of all applicable laws, rules and regulations for the uses and occupancies specified” for the project. The approved condominium offering plan stated that the Arts Tower would consist of a cellar level and 20 additional stories. This documentary evidence is prima facie proof that as of January 20, 2007, the building was erected to a height that was 10 stories taller than plaintiff's chimney, and sited within 100 feet of the chimney, thus triggering the three-year limitations period on plaintiff's claim that defendants failed to comply with Administrative Code § 27-860(a). Moreover, plaintiff concedes that it was aware of the building's height by the time construction was substantially completed in 2007. Accordingly plaintiff's claim accrued on January 20, 2007, and this action, commenced in March 2014, is thus time-barred … . West Chelsea Bldg. LLC v Guttman, 2016 NY Slip Op 02548, 1st Dept 3-31-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE PROVISION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE DID NOT TOLL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RE: AN ACTION SEEKING TO RECOVER THE COST OF BUILDING MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CODE AFTER DEFENDANTS' CONSTRUCTION OF A TALLER NEIGHBORING BUILDING)/ADMINSTRATIVE CODE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK (FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE PROVISION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE DID NOT TOLL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RE: AN ACTION SEEKING TO RECOVER THE COST OF BUILDING MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CODE AFTER DEFENDANTS' CONSTRUCTION OF A TALLER NEIGHBORING BUILDING)/BUILDING HEIGHT (NYC) (FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE PROVISION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE DID NOT TOLL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RE: AN ACTION SEEKING TO RECOVER THE COST OF BUILDING MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CODE AFTER DEFENDANTS' CONSTRUCTION OF A TALLER NEIGHBORING BUILDING)/CHIMNEY HEIGHT (NYC) (FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE PROVISION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE DID NOT TOLL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RE: AN ACTION SEEKING TO RECOVER THE COST OF BUILDING MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CODE AFTER DEFENDANTS' CONSTRUCTION OF A TALLER NEIGHBORING BUILDING)

, ,

DEFENDANT’S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY.

In this foreclosure action, the Second Department determined plaintiff bank's motion for summary judgment should not have been entertained because defendant had died before the motion was brought. The order appealed from was therefore a nullity:

Here, the deceased defendant died before the plaintiff's motion was made and before the order appealed from was issued. The attorney who had represented the deceased defendant prior to his death purportedly took this appeal on behalf of, among others, the deceased defendant. However, since a substitution of parties had not been effected prior to the filing of the notice of appeal, counsel lacked the authority to act for the deceased defendant, and the purported appeal taken on behalf of the deceased defendant must be dismissed … . Furthermore, since no substitution was made prior to the entry of the order appealed from, the order appealed from is a nullity to the extent that it pertains to the deceased defendant, and we vacate so much of the order as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the deceased defendant … .

Similarly, in this case, since a proper substitution had not been made, the Supreme Court should not have determined the merits of the plaintiff's motion, even to the extent that the plaintiff sought relief against the other defendants … . Aurora Bank FSB v Albright, 2016 NY Slip Op 02307, 2nd Dept 3-30-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT'S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY)/JURISDICTION (DEATH, DEFENDANT'S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (DEFENDANT'S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY)/APPEALS (DEATH, DEFENDANT'S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY)

,

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have considered allegations of a serious injury in a car-accident case which were raised for the first time in a “supplemental verified bill of particulars” submitted in opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion:

… [D]efendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint for failure to meet the serious injury threshold and for failure to incur economic loss exceeding basic economic loss. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted, inter alia, a “supplemental verified bill of particulars” in which they added an allegation that plaintiff had sustained a serious injury under the significant disfigurement category of serious injury (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Defendant objected to plaintiffs' attempt to ” supplement' ” their bill of particulars in opposition to the motion.

Supreme Court granted defendant's motion insofar as it concerned plaintiffs' claims for economic loss, but denied the motion “in all other respects.” In its decision supporting the order, the court wrote that the evidence submitted by plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact on all three categories of serious injury. Only defendant appeals.

We agree with defendant that plaintiffs improperly asserted a “new injury” in their “supplemental verified bill of particulars” (CPLR 3043 [b] …), and that the court erred in considering that new category of serious injury inasmuch as it was raised for the first time in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment … . We thus conclude that the claim of significant disfigurement was not cognizable by the court … , that it was error for the court to consider the new injury claim … , and that the court should have disregarded evidence related to that category of serious injury … . Stamps v Pudetti, 2016 NY Slip Op 02272, 4th Dept 3-25-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT)

,

CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined the motion for an order of attachment was properly granted. The court explained the analytical criteria:

Attachment is a provisional remedy designed to secure a debt by preliminary levy upon the property of the debtor to conserve it for eventual execution, and the courts have strictly construed the attachment statute in favor of those against whom it may be employed … . In order to be granted an order of attachment under CPLR 6201(3), a “plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has concealed or is about to conceal property in one or more of several enumerated ways, and has acted or will act with the intent to defraud creditors or to frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in favor of the plaintiff” … .  In addition to proving fraudulent intent, the plaintiff must show a probability of success on the merits … . Hume v 1 Prospect Park ALF, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02055, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED)/ATTACHMENT (CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED)

,

OMISSIONS FROM COMPLAINT SUPPLIED BY AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the omissions from the complaint against defendant insurance company were remedied by an affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss:

A complaint must “be sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions” that form the basis of the complaint and “the material elements of each cause of action” (CPLR 3013). The factual allegations of the complaint are accepted as true, and afforded “every possible favorable inference” … . “[A] court may freely consider affidavits submitted by the plaintiff to remedy any defects in the complaint and the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one … . When such affidavits are considered, dismissal should not result unless “a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it” … .

Here, the complaint standing alone failed to apprise defendant insurance companies of basic pertinent information to put them on notice of the claims against them, such as the patients treated and the insurance policies issued by defendant, under which plaintiff submitted claims for treatment rendered. However, in opposition to defendant insurance companies' motion to dismiss, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from its principal with an exhibit attached providing such information. Thus, the complaint and affidavit submitted in opposition sufficiently apprise defendant insurance companies of the “transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions” that form the basis of the complaint (CPLR 3013). High Definition MRI, P.C. v Travelers Cos., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02027, 1st Dept 3-22-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (OMISSIONS FROM COMPLAINT SUPPLIED BY AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/COMPLAINTS (OMISSIONS FROM COMPLAINT SUPPLIED BY AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

UNSWORN, UNCERTIFIED MEDICAL DOCUMENTS PROPERLY CONSIDERED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; CREDIBILITY OF AFFIANTS SHOULD NOT BE WEIGHED IN DECIDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.

In the course of reversing Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in a car-accident case, the court noted that unworn and uncertified medical records were admissible to support plaintiff's serious-injury claim because the documents were submitted by the defendants or because the documents were relied upon by plaintiff's expert, who provided a sworn opinion. In addition, the court noted that the credibility of affiants should not, as a general rule, be considered in deciding a summary judgment motion:

Although … many of the medical reports and records submitted by plaintiff in opposition to the cross motions were unsworn and uncertified, we may consider those reports and records that were “submitted by defendants . . . or were referenced in the reports of physicians who examined plaintiff on their behalf, and [defendants] submitted the reports of [those physicians]” … . To the extent that plaintiff submitted unsworn and uncertified medical reports and records that were not submitted by defendants or relied upon by their expert, we may nevertheless rely on the medical opinions of plaintiff's experts because “the various medical opinions relying on those . . . reports [and records] are sworn and thus competent evidence” … . … [T]he court erred in discounting entirely the opinion of plaintiff's treating physician due to perceived errors in his report. “The court may not weigh the credibility of the affiants on a motion for summary judgment unless it clearly appears that the issues are not genuine, but feigned” … . Cook v Peterson, 2016 NY Slip Op 01950, 4th Dept 3-18-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UNSWORN, UNCERTIFIED MEDICAL DOCUMENTS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, AFFIANT CREDIBILITY SHOULD NOT BE WEIGHED IN DECIDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UNSWORN, UNCERTIFIED MEDICAL DOCUMENTS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, AFFIANT CREDIBILITY SHOULD NOT BE WEIGHED IN DECIDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS (UNSWORN, UNCERTIFIED MEDICAL DOCUMENTS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, AFFIANT CREDIBILITY SHOULD NOT BE WEIGHED IN DECIDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE OF THE COMPLAINT.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff in a breach of contract action should have been allowed to amend its ad damnum clause:

… Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying its motion to amend the ad damnum clause from $77,585.50 to $111,331.13, and we therefore modify the order by granting the motion. It is axiomatic that ” [l]eave to amend a pleading should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party where the amendment is not patently lacking in merit' ” … . * * *

… “[I]n the absence of prejudice . . . , a motion to amend the ad damnum clause, whether made before or after the trial, should generally be granted” … . Putrelo Constr. Co. v Town of Marcy, 2016 NY Slip Op 01949, 4th Dept 3-18-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT OF AD DAMNUM CLAUSE OF THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED)/AD DAMNUM CLAUSE (AMENDMENT OF AD DAMNUM CLAUSE OF THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED)

,

ONCE PLAINTIFF RELEASED THE MORTGAGE UPON PAYMENT OF LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST THE NOTE AND GUARANTY BY AMENDING THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, once plaintiff agreed to release a mortgage in return for sale proceeds which were less than the value of the note, plaintiff could then commence a proceeding on the note and the guaranty. The court further held that the action on the note and guaranty could be accomplished by amending the original foreclosure complaint:

“RPAPL 1301(3) . . . prohibits a party from commencing an action at law to recover any part of the mortgage debt while the foreclosure proceeding is pending or has not reached final judgment, without leave of the court in which the foreclosure action was brought'” … . Conversely, “where a foreclosure action is no longer pending and did not result in a judgment in the plaintiff's favor, the plaintiff is not precluded from commencing a separate action' without leave of the court” … .

Here, since, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the plaintiff agreed to accept the net proceeds of the sale in exchange for releasing the property from the mortgage and there was no judgment in the plaintiff's favor, the plaintiff was not precluded from seeking to recover on the note and guaranty by RPAPL 1301(3), “a statute which must be strictly construed” … .

Furthermore, there is no reason the plaintiff could not seek such relief by seeking leave to amend its complaint, rather than by commencing a new action … . TD Bank, N.A. v 250 Jackson Ave., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01828, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST NOTE AND GUARANTY AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE)/NOTE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST NOTE AND GUARANTY AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE)/MORTGAGES (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST NOTE AND GUARANTY AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR  (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST NOTE AND GUARANTY AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDING COMPLAINT, AFTER RELEASING MORTGAGE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST THE NOTE AND GUARANTEE BY AMENDING THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT)

, ,

SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF STANDING REVERSED, LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE WAS WAIVED AND IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT.

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court's sua sponte dismissal of a foreclosure complaint for lack of standing. Because the defendants did not answer the complaint or make a pre-answer motion to dismiss, the defense of lack of standing was waived. The matter was sent back to be heard by a different judge:

The Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint and discharge of the notice of pendency against the subject property for lack of standing. “A court's power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with any extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint and discharge of the notice of pendency. Since the defendants did not answer the complaint and did not make pre-answer motions to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . Furthermore, a party's lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint by the court … . Consumer Solutions, LLC v Charles, 2016 NY Slip Op 01794, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

FORECLOSURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF STANDING REVERSED)/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF STANDING REVERSED, DEFENSE WAS WAIVED AND IS NOT A JURISDICTION DEFECT)

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