, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate she had standing to bring it:

“A plaintiff has standing to maintain a mortgage foreclosure action where it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced” … . The plaintiff can establish standing by attaching a properly endorsed note to the complaint when commencing the action . However, where an endorsement is on an allonge and not on the note itself, the plaintiff must establish that the allonge was “so firmly affixed to the note so as to become a part thereof” as required by UCC 3-202(2) at the time the action was commenced … . “Where there is no allonge or note that is either endorsed in blank or specially endorsed to the plaintiff, mere physical possession of a note at the commencement of a foreclosure action is insufficient to confer standing or to make a plaintiff the lawful holder of a negotiable instrument for the purposes of enforcing the note” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish her status as holder of the note at the time the action was commenced. Although the note was executed in favor of the decedent, the copy of the note attached to the complaint contains two purported endorsements in favor of nonparties, and the plaintiff failed to show that an allonge containing an additional endorsement back to the decedent was firmly affixed to the note … . Thompson v Seay, 2023 NY Slip Op 06072, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: Where the note and the endorsements do not comply with the requirements of UCC 3-202, plaintiff has not demonstrated standing to bring the foreclosure action.

 

, , , ,

THE UNION’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE FROM A VILLAGE POLICE OFFICER’S PAYCHECK WAS A BREACH-OF-CONTRACT ACTION FOR WHICH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN RUNNING ANEW FOR EACH PAYCHECK (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, determined the action by the union on behalf of a village police officer challenging the deduction of health insurance costs from each paycheck was a breach-of-contract action and the statute of limitations began running anew for each paycheck:

Teamsters Local 445 (hereinafter the Union) filed a demand for arbitration of a grievance against the Village of Maybrook alleging that the Village breached the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter CBA) by deducting a certain amount from each paycheck of Sergeant Michael Maresca for health insurance costs. The Supreme Court granted the Village’s petition to permanently stay arbitration on the ground that the claim sought to be arbitrated was barred by the four-month statute of limitations applicable to CPLR article 78 proceedings. The principal issues raised on this appeal are (1) whether the underlying claim is in the nature of CPLR article 78 seeking review of an administrative determination or in the nature of breach of contract, and (2) if the latter, whether the claim is predicated on a single breach or a series of breaches that occurred with each paycheck. … [W]e determine that the nature of the claim is breach of contract and that the claim is predicated on a series of independent alleged breaches. Since the statute of limitations began anew as to each breach, we find that the claim to be arbitrated was not wholly time-barred. We therefore modify the order appealed from by … granting the Union’s cross-motion to the extent of compelling arbitration of so much of the grievance as was not time-barred. Matter of Village of Maybrook v Teamsters Local 445, 2023 NY Slip Op 06051, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: Here the union’s challenge to the deduction of the cost of health insurance from a village police officer’s paycheck was governed by the six-year statute of limitations for a breach of contract action, not the four-month statute of limitations for an Article 78 proceeding. The statute began running anew for each paycheck.

 

, ,

THE PETITIONER MAKING THE FOIL REQUEST IS A LAW FIRM; THE FACT THAT THE FIRM’S CLIENT ALSO HAD STANDING TO MAKE THE FOIL REQUEST DID NOT DEPRIVE THE LAW FIRM OF STANDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 proceeding contesting the denial of petitioner’s FOIL request should not have been dismissed for lack of standing. Petitioner is a law firm seeking information on behalf of a client. The fact that the client could also make the FOIL request did not deprive the law firm of standing:

Supreme Court erred in concluding that the petitioner lacked standing to pursue this proceeding. The petitioner submitted the FOIL request to the Agency and its request was denied, both initially and on administrative appeal. Since the petitioner’s FOIL request was denied, it had standing to seek judicial review of the Agency’s determination … , regardless of whether it submitted the FOIL request, in whole or in part, on behalf of a client … . The petitioner’s standing was not extinguished by the fact that its client also would have had standing to commence a proceeding challenging the denial of the FOIL request … . Matter of Law Offs. of Cory H. Morris v Suffolk County, 2023 NY Slip Op 06046, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: Here a law firm made FOIL requests that were denied. The law firm then brought an Article 78 proceeding which was erroneously dismissed for lack of standing. The fact that the firm’s client had standing to bring the FOIL proceedings did not deprive the law firm of standing.

 

, ,

FATHER IGNORED COMPULSORY DISCOVERY OF HIS FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PAY SUPPORT; FATHER IS PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING SUCH EVIDENCE IN THE SUPPORT PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father should be precluded from presenting any evidence of his financial ability to pay support because he submitted no financial evidence in the discovery phase:

Family Court Act § 424-a “mandates the compulsory disclosure by both parties to a support proceeding of ‘their respective financial states,’ through the provision of tax returns, pay stubs, and sworn statements of net worth” … . “Where a respondent in a child support proceeding fails, without good cause, to comply with the compulsory financial disclosure mandated by Family Court Act § 424-a, ‘the court on its own motion or on application shall grant the relief demanded in the petition or shall order that, for purposes of the support proceeding, the respondent shall be precluded from offering evidence as to [the] respondent’s financial ability to pay support'” … .

Here, the father failed to provide a sworn statement of net worth, a tax return, or a pay stub, and he did not offer an explanation for his failure to do so. Since the father failed, without good cause, to comply with the compulsory financial disclosure mandated by Family Court Act [*2]§ 424-a, the Family Court was required to either grant the relief demanded in the petition or preclude the father from offering evidence as to his financial ability to pay support … . Under the circumstances of this case, the court should have precluded the father from offering evidence regarding his financial ability to pay support, and should have determined the amount of child support based on the needs of the child, as requested by the mother … . Matter of Grant v Seraphin, 2023 NY Slip Op 06044, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: In support proceedings, discovery of a party’s financial ability to pay support is compulsory. A party who fails to provide such discovery may be precluded from presenting any financial evidence.

 

, ,

THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT IN RPAPL 1371 FOR BRINGING A MOTION FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PURCHASER OF PROPERTY AT A FORECLOSURE SALE FUNCTIONS AS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE MOTION HERE WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgagor’s order to show cause seeking a deficiency judgment against defendant, the purchaser of the property at the foreclosure sale, should have been dismissed as untimely pursuant to RPAPL 1371:

RPAPL 1371(2) states that “[s]imultaneously with the making of a motion for an order confirming the sale, provided such motion is made within ninety days after the date of the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the proper deed of conveyance to the purchaser, the party to whom such residue shall be owing may make a motion in the action for leave to enter a deficiency judgment upon notice to the party against whom such judgment is sought or the attorney who shall have appeared for such party in such action.” “The courts have uniformly treated the 90-day period contained in RPAPL 1371(2) as a provision in the nature of a statute of limitations, so that the plaintiff’s failure to serve notice within the 90-day period is a complete bar to the entry of a deficiency judgment, and the proceeds of the sale will be deemed to be in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt” … . JDRMDBP-SM, LLC v Hossain, 2023 NY Slip Op 06033, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: The 90-day time-limit in RPAPL 1371 for bringing a motion for a deficiency judgment against the purchaser of property at a foreclosure sale functions as a statute of limitations. A late motion must be dismissed.

 

THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REQUIRED SERVICE BY OVERNIGHT EXPRESS; THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WAS SERVED BY PRIORITY MAIL; THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFIED MANNER OF SERVICE DEPRIVED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE MOTION.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not serve the order to show cause in the manner specified in the order. Therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion and the order was vacated:

Despite the express provision requiring overnight express service, in the March 16, 2020, order to show cause, plaintiff served the order to show cause and related papers by Priority Mail, which only guarantees delivery in one to three days. Failure to comply strictly with the service provision of the order to show cause deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear the motion … . Therefore, the resulting July 15, 2020 order should be vacated. Colonial Funding Network, Inc. v Finley, 2023 NY Slip Op 05980, First Dept 11-21-23

Practice Point: If the order to show cause specifies the manner of service and service is not made in that manner, the court is deprived of jurisdiction to hear the motion.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED DECEDENT, WHO WAS SUFFERING SHORTNESS OF BREATH, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AN ADVANCE LIFE SUPPORT AMBULANCE; THE COMPLAINT SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the complaint alleging decedent, who was suffering shortness of breath, should have been provided an advance life support (ALS) ambulance sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore the 2 1/2 year statute of limitations applied and the action was time-barred:

… [T]he allegations in the complaint sound in medical malpractice rather than ordinary negligence. Plaintiffs seek to hold defendant liable for its failure to provide decedent with an advance life support (ALS) ambulance after being advised that decedent was suffering from shortness of breath. The type of ambulance provided by defendant “bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment,” and thus plaintiffs’ claims must be viewed within a medical malpractice framework … . The dispatcher would need to understand the significance of “shortness of breath,” have specialized knowledge of the equipment or devices that could treat or care for the possible conditions arising from this symptom and be familiar with accepted practice in providing an ALS ambulance … . Trofimova v Seniorcare Emergency Med. Servs., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05997, First Dept 11-21-23

Practice Point: Where the complaint alleges the need for and failure to provide an ambulance with advance life support, it sounds in medical malpractice, not negligence.

 

,

HERE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REQUIRED INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A GUTTER, DOWNSPOUT AND FENCE FOR $2500; THE MEMORANDUM WAS NOT AN “INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY” AND THEREFORE “SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT” WAS NOT AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined summary judgment in lieu of complaint was not available because the underlying document was not “an instrument for the payment of money only:”

By motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint (see CPLR 3213), plaintiff moved for judgment in the amount of $2,500.00, plus interest, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the parties regarding the installation and maintenance of a gutter, downspout, and fence between their adjoining properties.  * * *

… [T]he court erred in granting the motion inasmuch as the parties’ memorandum of understanding is not “an instrument for the payment of money only” (CPLR 3213 …). Where, as here, an agreement ” ‘requires something in addition to [an] explicit promise to pay a sum of money, CPLR 3213 is unavailable’ ”  Ellicottville Inn Condominium Assn. v Kempisty, 2023 NY Slip Op 05826, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: When a document requires something in addition to the payment of money (here the installation and maintenance of a gutter, downspout and a fence) it is not an “instrument for the payment of money only” and cannot be enforced by summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS COULD HAVE COMMENCED THE LAWSUIT WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BY FILING BEFORE OR AFTER THE COVID TOLL-PERIOD, THAT IS NOT RELEVANT; THE TOLL EFFECTIVELY ADDED 228 DAYS, THE LENGTH OF THE TOLL-PERIOD, TO THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the COVID tolls of the statute of limitations rendered the plaintiffs action timely:

472 days of the 1,095-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 623 days of the limitation period began to run again, expiring on July 20, 2022 … . Thus, the action was timely commenced on May 18, 2022 … .

Defendants contend that the toll is inapplicable here because plaintiffs could have timely commenced the action at any point between December 4, 2018 [when the cause action accrued], and March 20, 2020 [when the toll began], or between November 3, 2020 [when the toll expired], and December 4, 2021 [three years from accual]. We reject that contention. “[A] toll operates to compensate a claimant for the shortening of the statutory period in which it must commence . . . an action, irrespective of whether the stay has actually deprived the claimant of any opportunity to do so” …  Thus, plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of tolling for the entire 228-day duration of the COVID-19 Executive Orders. Harden v Weinraub, 2023 NY Slip Op 05822, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiffs’ action accrued before the COVID toll-period which began on March 20, 2020, and there was still time left on the three-year statute of limitations when the toll was lifted on November 3, 2020. The fact that plaintiffs could have commenced the suit within three years of accrual was not relevant. The three-year statute was extended by the the length of the toll-period, 228 days.

 

IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING WHICH IS TRIGGERED BY A DEMAND BY PETITIONER, AN UNREASONABLE DELAY IN MAKING THE DEMAND WILL RENDER THE PROCEEDING TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s Article 78 proceeding was time-barred because petitioner unreasonably delayed making the demand which triggered the four-month statute of limitations (laches):

“[W]here, as here, the proceeding is in the nature of mandamus to compel, it ‘must be commenced within four months after refusal by respondent, upon demand of petitioner, to perform its duty’ ” … . ” ‘[A] petitioner[, however,] may not delay in making a demand in order to indefinitely postpone the time within which to institute the proceeding. The petitioner must make his or her demand within a reasonable time after the right to make it occurs, or after the petitioner knows or should know of the facts which give him or her a clear right to relief, or else, the petitioner’s claim can be barred by the doctrine of laches’ ” … . “The term laches, as used in connection with the requirement of the making of a prompt demand in mandamus proceedings, refers solely to the unexcused lapse of time” and “does not refer to the equitable doctrine of laches” … . Inasmuch as “[t]he problem . . . is one of the [s]tatute of [l]imitations[,] . . . it is immaterial whether or not the delay cause[s] any prejudice to the respondent” … . “[T]he four-month limitations period of CPLR article 78 proceedings has been ‘treat[ed] . . . as a measure of permissible delay in the making of the demand’ ” … . Matter of Cor Van Rensselaer St. Co. III, Inc. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 05867, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Where a mandamus proceeding is triggered by a demand by petitioner, an unreasonable delay in making the demand will render the proceeding time-barred.