You are here: / Civil Procedure
, , ,

​ IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY NOT CONSIDERED) AND THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT NOTIFIED A TENANT OF THE FORECLOSURE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1303 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank (Merrill Lynch) in this foreclosure action failed to prove defendant’s default and failed to notify a tenant on the property of the foreclosure. The bank’s attempt to prove the default in reply papers was rejected:

Merrill Lynch failed to submit admissible evidence establishing the defendant’s default. In support of its motion, Merrill Lynch submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of Theresia Ang, the vice president of its loan servicer and attorney-in-fact. However, Ang failed to attach the business records on which she relied, and thus, her averment to the defendant’s default was hearsay lacking in probative value … . Although Merrill Lynch attempted to submit evidence of the defendant’s default in reply, a moving party “cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply” … .

… RPAPL 1303 requires, inter alia, the party foreclosing a mortgage on residential property to provide the notice prescribed by the statute to any tenant of the property by certified mail, if the identity of the tenant is known to the foreclosing party (see id. § 1303[1][b]; [4]). Proper service of an RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action, and the “‘foreclosing party has the burden of showing compliance therewith'” … .

Here, Merrill Lynch failed to submit any evidence that it served any tenant of the subject property with the notices required by RPAPL 1303 by certified mail, or that it was not aware of any tenant’s identity. In contrast, the defendant’s affidavit and the affidavit of Richard Nicholson, submitted in opposition to Merrill Lynch’s motion, established that Richard Nicholson resided at the subject property, that he paid rent, and that the mortgage loan servicer was aware that he resided at the subject property. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp. v Nicholson, 2022 NY Slip Op 06239, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action failed to submit sufficient evidence of defendant’s default and was not allowed to cure the defect in reply papers.

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate it notified a tenant of the foreclosure as required by RPAPL 1303.

 

,

REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WITH NO EXCUSE WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ failure to comply with discovery orders justified striking the answer:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer. The defendants’ willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from their repeated failures, over an extended period of time, to comply with the plaintiffs’ discovery demands and the court’s discovery orders without an adequate excuse … . L.K. v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06236, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: Here the defendants offered no excuse for their failure to comply with discovery orders and the appellate court struck their answer.

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE, A SEPARATE PAPER, WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTE, AS REQUIRED BY THE UCC; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence the action based on its annexation of the note to the summons and complaint, since the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonge, which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the note, was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . Hudson City Sav. Bank v Ellia, 2022 NY Slip Op 06235, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: When a defendant contests the bank’s standing to bring a foreclosure action, the bank must prove the allonge (a separate paper) was “firmly attached” to the note as required by UCC 3-202(2).

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND CAN BE CURED SUA SPONTE, HERE THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT PROPERLY SEEK LEAVE TO EXCUSE THE FAILURE AND THE JUDGE DID NOT GRANT PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE A LATE PROOF OF SERVICE; THE SERVICE WHICH WAS ALLOWED TO STAND BY THE JUDGE WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not granted plaintiffs leave to file late proof of service on defendant Joffe. Plaintiffs offered no excuse for the failure:

Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for a declaration that Joffe was properly served with process pursuant to CPLR 308(2) and 313. The court did not acknowledge or address Joffe’s argument that the plaintiffs’ proof of service had not been filed with the court within the requisite time. The court recognized, but did not reach the merits of, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was, in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve Joffe by 120 additional days. The court, in effect, denied the alternative branch of the plaintiffs’ motion on the ground that it was academic.

… CPLR 308(2) provides that “proof of such service shall be filed with the clerk of the court designated in the summons within twenty days of either such delivery or mailing, whichever is effected later.”

… [T]he failure to file timely proof of service does not constitute a jurisdictional defect … . Rather, “[t]he failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity . . . that may be cured by motion or sua sponte by the court in its discretion pursuant to CPLR 2004” … .

Here, since the plaintiffs did not properly seek leave to excuse their failure to timely file proof of service, and the Supreme Court did not grant them leave to file proof of service beyond the statutory window (see CPLR 308[2]), the proof of service relating to Joffe was a nullity … . Under the circumstances, the court should have denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for a declaration that Joffe was properly served with process pursuant to CPLR 308(2) and 313. Chunyin Li v Joffe, 2022 NY Slip Op 06227, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: The failure to file proof of service is not a jurisdictional defect and can be cured by the judge sua sponte. Here however the plaintiffs did not properly seek leave to excuse their failure to timely file proof of service and the judge did not grant plaintiffs leave to file late proof of service, rendering the service on the defendant (allowed to stand by the judge) a nullity.

 

,

THE ORDER DENYING A MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY A PRIOR ORDER DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER “APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT” AND THEREFORE WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION; THE CRITERIA FOR AN “ORDER APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT” WERE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department noted that the order refusing to vacate or modify a prior order was not appealable:

… [T]his Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the portion of defendants’ appeal from the denial of the motion to vacate. Pursuant to CPLR 5701(a)(3), a party may appeal to this Court as of right from an order refusing to vacate or modify a prior order, but only where the prior order “would have been appealable as of right” pursuant to CPLR 5701(a)(2) if it had been the result of a motion on notice. Here, the Extension Denial Order would not have been appealable as of right if it had been the result of a motion made on notice. The Extension Denial Order was not a substantive ruling, rather it denied defendants’ request for an extension of its time to post a bond. The order did not “involve[] some part of the merits” of the case (CPLR 5701[a][2][iv]) or “affect[] a substantial right” (CPLR 5701[a][2][v]) of the parties, or otherwise fit within CPLR 5701(a)(2) such that it would be appealable as of right. Largo 613 Baltic St. Partners LLC v Stern, 2022 NY Slip Op 06168, First Dept 11-3-22

Practice Point: An order denying a motion to vacate or modify a prior order must meet the criteria for “an order appealable as of right” to be considered on appeal. Here the denial of the motion to vacate the prior order was not a substantive ruling (it asked for an exension of time to post a bond) and therefore did not meet the “appealable as of right” criteria.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS BUT DID NOT WARRANT SUPREME COURT’S STRIKING THE COMPLAINT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION IMPOSED EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AND ORDERED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO PAY DEFENDANT $3000 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, agreed plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery orders was willful and contumacious, but determined striking the complaint was too severe a sanction. The appellate division’s sanctions included ordering plaintiff’s counsel to pay defendant $3000:

… [T]he record demonstrates that the plaintiff violated court orders directing her to appear for a continued deposition by a certain date, to provide a full set of copies of photographs that she referenced during her first deposition or provide an affidavit as to the nonexistence of those photographs, and to execute authorizations for certain medical providers, a pattern that supports an inference of willful and contumacious behavior … . Furthermore, the plaintiff’s procedural objection to the defendant’s motion was without merit. However, under the circumstances, we find that the striking of the complaint was too drastic a remedy … . Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint should have been granted only to the extent of (1) precluding the plaintiff from using at trial any photograph that was not produced in response to the defendant’s discovery demands, (2) directing the plaintiff to provide the defendant with medical authorizations for Jamaica Hospital, and (3) directing the plaintiff’s counsel to personally pay the sum of $3,000 as a sanction to the defendant … . Castillo v Charles, 2022 NY Slip Op 06103, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Here the appellate division found plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery orders willful and contumacious but did not agree with Supreme Court’s striking of the complaint. The appellate court imposed evidentiary sanctions and ordered plaintiff’s counsel to pay defendant $3000.

 

, ,

DRIVER PURCHASED A GOODYEAR TIRE FOR HIS FORD FROM US TIRES, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; THE TIRE ALLEGEDLY FAILED LEADING TO A SERIOUS ACCIDENT IN VIRGINIA; DRIVER SUED US TIRES; US TIRES SUED GOODYEAR AND FORD, BOTH OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS, SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION; NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER GOODYEAR AND FORD IN THE US TIRES SUIT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Genovesi, determined New York has long-arm jurisdiction over third-party defendants Ford and Goodyear in this suit by a New York corporation, US Tires. US Tires installed a Goodyear tire on a Ford. The tire allegedly failed in Virginia and three passengers died. The plaintiffs, including the driver, sued US Tires. US Tires sued Ford and Goodyear, both out-of-state corporation, seeking indemnification. The issue on appeal was whether Ford and Goodyear had sufficient contacts with New York to support long-arm jurisdiction:

Ford and Goodyear concede that they conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in New York, thus satisfying the first prong of CPLR 302(a)(1). As to the second prong of CPLR 302(a)(1), US Tires demonstrated that Goodyear’s and Ford’s activities in New York have a sufficient connection with the claims herein. * * *

When all the requirements of CPLR 302 are met, the exercise of personal jurisdiction still must comport with constitutional due process requirements … . * * *

Based on the record before us, the exercise of specific jurisdiction over Ford and Goodyear comports with due process … . … Ford and Goodyear concede that they had sufficient “minimum contacts” with New York. … [T]he only remaining question is whether Ford and Goodyear have met their burden of presenting “a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable” … . We conclude that Ford and Goodyear have failed to meet this burden. Aybar v US Tires & Wheels of Queens, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06099, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: This decision includes a comprehensive discussion of general and specific jurisdiction which is worth consulting. In this suit by a New York corporation, US Tires, seeking indemnification from two out-of-state corporations, Ford and Goodyear, the court determined Ford and Goodyear had sufficient contacts with New York to support long-arm jurisdiction. US Tires installed a Goodyear tire on driver’s Ford. The tire allegedly failed in Virginia, causing a serious accident. The driver sued US Tires. US Tires sued Ford and Goodyear.

 

,

IN AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF REASONABLY RELIED ON THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION IS USUALLY A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH CANNOT BE RESOLVED IN A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement. Plaintiff radiologist alleged defendant induced him to open a radiology practice which, plaintiff said, already had a patient-referral system in place. Plaintiff alleged that, after expending funds to open the practice, he learned he would have to pay for the referrals and he shut the practice down. The appellate court held that whether plaintiff reasonably relied on the alleged misrepresentation usually is a question of fact for the jury:

Regarding reasonable reliance on a misrepresentation of a material fact, the “plaintiff is expected to exercise ordinary diligence and may not claim to have reasonably relied on a defendant’s representations [or silence] where he [or she] has means available to him [or her] of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation” … .

The “question of what constitutes reasonable reliance is always nettlesome because it is so fact-intensive” …  The resolution of the issue of whether a plaintiff reasonably relied on a defendant’s misrepresentation in support of a cause of action alleging fraud in the inducement is ordinarily relegated to the finder of fact … . … [P]laintiffs adequately stated a cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent inducement insofar as the determination of the reasonableness of [plaintiff-radiologist’s] reliance on [defendant’s] alleged misrepresentations concerning, among other things, the source of the … patient referrals itself entailed a question of fact not appropriate for summary disposition as a matter of law. Feldman v Byrne, 2022 NY Slip Op 06113, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: In an action for fraudulent inducement, whether the plaintiff’s reliance on the alleged misrepresentation was reasonable is a difficult issue which usually raises a question of fact for the jury and therefore cannot be summarily resolved in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED FACTS SUPPORTING PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL; THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the complaint sufficiently alleged the corporate veil should be pierced, and (2) the unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing causes of action should not have been dismissed:

… [A] plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . “The decision whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instance depends on the particular facts and circumstances” … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether the owner has abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form include whether there was a failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and use of corporate funds for personal use” … . A cause of action under the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is not required to meet any heightened level of particularity in its allegations … .

… [T]he plaintiffs adequately pleaded allegations that [the individual defendants] dominated [the corporations], and that they engaged in acts amounting to an abuse of the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against the plaintiffs … . …

Where, as here, the existence of a contract, in this case, the alleged agreements [are] in dispute, a plaintiff may allege a cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment as an alternative to a cause of action alleging breach of contract (see CPLR 3014 …). Consequently, the cause of action alleging unjust enrichment was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action … . Furthermore, the cause of action alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action since it alleged that the defendants engaged in additional conduct to realize gains from the plaintiffs, while depriving the plaintiffs of the benefits of the parties’ agreements … . F&R Goldfish Corp. v Furleiter, 2022 NY Slip Op 06112. Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: The facts alleged in the complaint supported piercing the corporate veil, criteria explained.

Practice Point: Because the existence of the agreements was in dispute, the unjust enrichment cause of action should not have been dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action.

Practice Point: The facts alleged supported a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

 

, ,

A MOTION TO VACATE AN ORDER SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE JUDGE WHO MADE THE ORDER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) a motion to vacate an order should be transferred to the judge who made the order; and (2) the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the foreclosure complaint:

A motion to vacate an order “shall be made, on notice, to the judge who signed the order, unless he or she is for any reason unable to hear it” (CPLR 2221[a]). “A motion made to other than a proper judge . . . shall be transferred to the proper judge” (CPLR 2221[c]). Here, instead of denying the first motion with leave to renew before Justice Schulman, the Supreme Court should have transferred the first motion to Justice Schulman … . …

“‘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 plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directives of the order … was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the complaint in the first action … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Dedalto, 2022 NY Slip Op 06105, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: A motion to vacate an order should be transferred to the judge who made the order.

Practice Point: A judge’s power to, sua sponte, dismiss a complaint is limited and should only be exercised in extraordinary circumstances (not present in this case).

 

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