You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REFEREE’S FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE IF THE DEFENDANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE REFEREE’S REPORT BY SUBMITTING EVIDENCE DIRECTLY TO SUPREME COURT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that the referee’s failure to hold a hearing in a foreclosure action does not require reversal of a judgment of foreclosure if the defendant had an opportunity the challenge the referee’s report by submitting evidence directly to Supreme Court:

“CPLR 4313 requires a referee to notify the parties of the date and place for a hearing. However, hearings may be performed either on paper or by the taking of in-court evidence” … . Generally, “‘[a]s long as a defendant is not prejudiced by the inability to submit evidence directly to the referee, a referee’s failure to notify a defendant and hold a hearing is not, by itself, a basis to reverse a judgment of foreclosure and sale and remit the matter for a hearing and a new determination of amounts owed'” … . This is because “the referee’s findings and recommendations are advisory only; they have no binding effect and the court remains the ultimate arbiter of the dispute [as] CPLR 4403 expressly authorizes a court not only to reject the report but to make its own findings, to take or retake testimony or to order a new trial or hearing” … .

Here, defendants were provided with “an opportunity to challenge the referee’s report by submitting evidence directly to Supreme Court” upon plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report — an opportunity of which they did not avail themselves … .Carrington Mtge. Servs., LLC v Fiore, 2022 NY Slip Op 03951, Third Dept 6-16-22

Practice Point: Although the CPLR requires the referee in a foreclosure action to hold a hearing, the failure to hold the hearing is not reversible error as long as the defendant had the opportunity to challenge the referee’s report by submitting evidence directly to Supreme Court.

 

,

ONLY THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CPLR 205 (A) WHICH ALLOWS RE-COMMENCEMENT OF A LAWSUIT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF A DISMISSAL WHICH WAS NOT ON THE MERITS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the plaintiff, HSBC, could not take advantage of the six-month extension for commencing an action after a dismissal which was not on the merits (CPLR 205(a)) because HSBC was not the original plaintiff:

When a timely-commenced action has been dismissed on certain non-merits grounds, CPLR 205 (a) allows “the plaintiff” in that action “or, if the plaintiff dies,” the “executor or administrator” of the plaintiff’s estate, six months to commence a new action based on the same transaction or occurrence. The new action will be deemed timely based on the commencement of the prior action. Here, after the dismissal of a prior action brought by two certificateholders … —and after the statute of limitations expired—plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, National Association, in its capacity as trustee of a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trust, commenced this action against the sponsor, invoking CPLR 205 (a). Because HSBC was not “the original plaintiff” in the prior dismissed action … , we agree with the courts below that HSBC could not invoke CPLR 205 (a) to avoid dismissal of this time-barred claim … .* * *

HSBC is not “the plaintiff” in the prior action and the benefit of CPLR 205 (a) is unavailable to save its untimely complaint. … [T]his conclusion is consistent with the public policy underpinning the savings statute. CPLR 205 (a) is a remedial statute that … is “‘designed to insure to the diligent suitor'” an opportunity to have a claim heard on the merits … when the suitor has “initiated a suit in time” … but the claim was dismissed on some technical, non-merits-based ground. While the savings statute undoubtedly has a “broad and liberal purpose” … to “ameliorate the potentially harsh effect of the [s]tatute of [l]imitations” … , “[t]he important consideration is that, by invoking judicial aid [in the first action], a litigant gives timely notice to [the] adversary of a present purpose to maintain [its] rights before the courts” … . Where, as here, the litigant commencing the second action is not the original plaintiff, application of CPLR 205 (a) would protect the rights of a dilatory—not a diligent—suitor. By failing to bring the action within the statute of limitations, HSBC signaled that it had no intention to pursue its claims in court. CPLR 205 (a) does not apply and HSBC’s failure to commence an action within the statute of limitations is fatal. ACE Sec. Corp. v DB Structured Prods., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03927, CtApp 6-16-22

Practice Point: Only the original plaintiff can take advantage of CPLR 205 (a) which allows re-commencement of a lawsuit within six months of a dismissal which was not on the merits.

 

,

PLAINTIFF OFFERED NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SEVEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE ORDER OF REFERENCE AND THE MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE; THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE DELAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant was prejudiced by the unexplained seven-year delay between the order of reference in 2009 and the motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale in 2016, Therefore the accrual of interest during the delay should have been tolled:

… [A]pproximately seven years elapsed between the entry of the order of reference and the time the plaintiff moved for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. … [Plaintiff] failed to offer any explanation for this delay or establish that the defendant caused this delay, as the record demonstrates that the defendant’s motions and the stays due to the defendant’s bankruptcy petitions did not occur during the period for which the defendant sought to toll the accrual of interest. Since the defendant was prejudiced by the plaintiff’s unexplained delay of approximately seven years, during which time interest had been accruing, the interest on the loan should have been tolled from October 9, 2009, … until September 21, 2016 … . GMAC Mtge., LLC v Yun, 2022 NY Slip Op 03887, Second Dept 6-15-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff could not explain the seven-year delay between the order of reference and the motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Interest should not have accrued during the delay.

 

, , ,

THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE DESTROYED THE UNDERGROUND OIL TANKS WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE LEAKED, CONTAMINATING PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT OIL COMPANIES DID NOT DEMONSRTATE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TANKS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A DEFENSE; THEREFORE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION, NOT THE STRIKING OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff should have preserved the underground oil tanks which allegedly leaked and contaminated plaintiff’s property, but that striking the complaint was not warranted under the doctrine of spoliation. Because the defendants did not demonstrate the destruction of the tanks made it impossible to mount a defense, an adverse inference instruction was the appropriate sanction:

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for a violation of Navigation Law § 181, alleging that the defendants Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Getty Oil Company, Getty Refining and Marketing Company, and Getty Oil Company (Eastern Operations), Inc. (hereinafter collectively the defendants), discharged petroleum from underground storage tanks on the plaintiff’s property. * * *

… [T]he defendants demonstrated that the plaintiff had an obligation to preserve the tanks at the time they were disposed of, which was before the defendants had an opportunity to inspect the tanks, that the tanks were destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and that the tanks were relevant to the litigation … . However, the defendants failed to establish that their ability to prove a defense was fatally compromised by the destruction of the tanks, or that the destruction of the tanks was willful and contumacious … . Dagro Assoc. II, LLC v Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03884, Second Dept 6-15-22

Practice Point: Where spoliation of evidence does not take away the defendants’ ability to prove a defense, and where spoliation was not done willfully and contumaciously, striking the complaint is not warranted. The appropriate sanction is an adverse inference jury instruction.

 

,

BECAUSE THE PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING, THE PRIOR ACTION DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTANT ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the defendant in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate the foreclosure action was time barred. The initial foreclosure action was dismissed for lack of standing. Therefore the debt was not accelerated by the prior action:

Since the prior action was dismissed for lack of standing, [defendant] failed to establish that the plaintiff had the authority to accelerate the debt through the complaint filed in the prior action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Rutty, 2022 NY Slip Op 03926, Second Dept 6-15-22

Practice Point: If a prior foreclosure action was dismissed for lack of standing that action will not be deemed to have accelerated the debt. The prior action, therefore, will not have started the statute-of-limitations clock..

 

, , ,

AFTER THE TRIAL HAD BEGUN AND WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED, THE JUDGE BECAME ILL AND SOUGHT A COVID TEST; AFTER THE NEGATIVE TEST-RESULT, THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSENT, DECLARED A MISTRIAL; THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER A CONTINUANCE OR THE SUBSTITUTION OF ANOTHER JUDGE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROHIBITION PRECLUDED RETRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department granted defendant’s petition for a writ of prohibition barring retrial on the ground of double jeopardy. A jury was selected and three witnesses had testified when the trial judge became ill and scheduled a COVID test (which came back negative). The judge ultimately, sua sponte, declared a mistrial without defendant’s consent. Because there were alternatives to a mistrial, a continuance, for example, the double-jeopardy prohibition precluded retrial:

… [T]here was no manifest necessity for the mistrial, and the court therefore abused its discretion in granting it sua sponte … . The record establishes that the court did not consider the alternatives to a mistrial, such as a continuance … or substitution of another judge … . “[I]f the judge acts so abruptly as to not permit consideration of the alternatives . . . or otherwise acts irrationally or irresponsibly . . . or solely for convenience of the court and jury . . . , retrial will be barred” … . “The court has the duty to consider alternatives to a mistrial and to obtain enough information so that it is clear that a mistrial is actually necessary” … . Matter of McNair v McNamara, 2022 NY Slip Op 03825, Fourth Dept 6-9-22

Practice Point: Here the judge became ill after the trial had begun and declared a mistrial without defendant’s consent and without considering a continuance or the substitution of another judge. There was no manifest necessity for the mistrial. The double-jeopardy prohibition therefore precluded retrial.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF VILLAGE IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 9802; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S ANTICIPATORY-REPUDIATION COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE’S PARTICIPATION IN DISCOVERY WAS NOT DESIGNED TO MISLEAD THE DEFENDANT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s failure to file a notice of claim required dismissal of its counterclaim (anticipatory repudiation of contract) against the village:

Pursuant to CPLR 9802, “no action shall be maintained against the village upon or arising out of a contract of the village . . . unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the village clerk within one year after the cause of action shall have accrued.” “‘[S]tatutory requirements conditioning suit [against a governmental entity] must be strictly construed'” … . This is true even when the municipality “‘had actual knowledge of the claim or failed to demonstrate actual prejudice'” … .  …

… [T]he plaintiff’s exchanging of discovery and participation in the depositions of witnesses did not estop it from raising a defense pursuant to CPLR 9802, as mere participation in litigation does not constitute action calculated to mislead or discourage the defendant from filing a notice of claim … . Incorporated Vil. of Freeport v Freeport Plaza W., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03713, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: In a contract action against a municipality, here an anticipatory-repudiation-of-contract counterclaim, a notice of claim must be filed (CPLR 9802). No notice of claim was filed here and the counterclaim should have been dismissed. The fact that the municipality participated in discovery did not give rise to the estoppel doctrine because there was no intent to mislead the defendant with respect to the notice-of-claim requirement.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS ANSWER (ADDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES) WAS MADE AFTER A TWO-YEAR DELAY, THE DELAY ALONE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PLAINTIFF WAS PREJUDICED; THE MOTION TO AMEND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to amend its answer to add additional affirmative defenses should have been granted. The two-year delay was not enough to show plaintiff was prejudiced. Discovery was ongoing:

The court should have granted defendant’s motion to amend its answer to add the four affirmative defenses of RPAPL 1951, adverse possession, mutual breach, and unclean hands, as leave to amend is freely given and plaintiff did not show that it would be prejudiced by the delay in asserting the defenses (CPLR 3025[b] …). While over two years had passed since defendant served its original answer, discovery was still ongoing … . Plaintiff’s claim of significant prejudice is unpersuasive, as all it points to is mere delay, which is insufficient to show prejudice … . Nor did plaintiff rebut defendant’s showing that the proffered amendment is not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit … . Board of Mgrs. of the Porter House Condominium v Delshah 60 Ninth LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03680, First Dept 6-7-22

Practice Point: Here defendant moved to amend its answer by adding affirmative defenses two years after the answer was served. Discovery was still ongoing. The delay alone was not enough to demonstrate the plaintiff was prejudiced. The motion to amend should have been granted.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING THE PROCEEDS OF A JOINT VENTURE, WHICH, UNDER PARTNERSHIP LAW, INVOLVES PERSONAL PROPERTY, NOT REAL PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF HAD NO INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS TO BE USED AS AN INN OPERATED AS A JOINT VENTURE; THERFORE THE LIS PENDENS FILED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN CANCELLED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no relationship between plaintiff’s action seeking the assets of a joint venture and the ownership of the real property associated with the joint venture (to be used as an inn). Therefore defendants’ motion to cancel the lis pendens should have been granted:

“A notice of pendency may be filed in any action in a court of the state or of the United States in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property” (CPLR 6501). Because the provisional remedy of a notice of pendency is an ” ‘extraordinary privilege’ ” … , the Court of Appeals has held that to be entitled to that remedy, there must be a “direct relationship” between the relief sought in the complaint and the title to or possession of the disputed property … . In making that determination, a court must use “a narrow interpretation,” and its “analysis is to be limited to the pleading’s face” … . …

Supreme Court erred in denying their motion insofar as it sought to cancel the notice of pendency because there was no direct relationship between title to or possession of the property and the relief sought by plaintiff. We therefore modify the order accordingly. Reviewing the complaint on its face, we conclude that plaintiff seeks merely to enforce her purported 50% share in the joint venture and does not assert an interest in the property itself. Indeed, the complaint alleges that title to the property was, at all relevant times, held by Properties LLC, of which plaintiff was not a member. It is well settled that ” ‘the legal consequences of a joint venture are equivalent to those of a partnership’ ” … , and thus a joint venturer’s interest in a joint venture constitutes an interest in only personal property, not real property, thereby precluding recourse to a notice of pendency … . Renfro v Herrald, 2022 NY Slip Op 03593, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: Partnership law applies to joint ventures. Here the joint venture was the operation of an inn. Plaintiff sought the assets of the joint venture, which involves only personal property, not real property. Plaintiff had no interest in the real property (the inn). Therefore the lis pendens filed by the plaintiff should have been cancelled.

 

,

IF GERMANY WAS DECEDENT’S DOMICILE, NEW YORK MAY RECOGNIZE THE GERMAN HOLOGRAPHIC WILL; MATTER SENT BACK TO SURROGATE’S COURT TO DEVELOP A RECORD ON THE DOMICILE ISSUE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined a hearing should be held to determine decedent’s domicile. Decedent was a world traveler who owned property in Germany and executed a holographic will in Germany. If Germany was his domicile, New York may recognize the holographic will:

… [D]ecedent was initially domiciled in New Jersey before he left the United States in 2014 … . Since decedent’s domicile had been established, “unlike mere physical residency, [domicile] is presumed to continue until a new one is acquired and is controlled by the subjective intent of the party claiming domicile” … . This determination generally involves questions of both fact and law “and is based upon ‘conduct manifesting an intent to establish a permanent home with permanent associations in a given location'” … . Where there are particularly unique facts, like here with decedent being a perpetual world traveler, domicile is often “a question of fact rather than law, and it frequently depends upon a variety of circumstances, which differ as widely as the peculiarities of individuals” … .

Domicile is particularly important where, like here, there is a petition to probate a holographic will. Although there are limited circumstances where a holographic will may be validly executed in New York (see EPTL 3-2.2), New York courts may nevertheless accept holographic wills that are “executed and attested in accordance with the local law of . . . [t]he jurisdiction in which the testator was domiciled, either at the time of execution or of death” (EPTL 3-5.1 [c] [3] …). In doing so, New York courts may take judicial notice of the laws of other countries and, as a matter of comity, may accept the findings of foreign courts (see CPLR 4511 [b] …).

… [T]he record was incomplete and must be further developed as it relates to the proceedings in Germany. Specifically, we are concerned over the omission of the certificate of inheritance — which petitioner argues established decedent’s domicile in Germany — as such document may, if afforded comity, be dispositive … . Matter of Noichl, 2022 NY Slip Op 03558, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Determination of a person’s domicile is a question of law and fact, depending in part on the person’s intent. Here, if Germany was decedent’s domicile at the time the holographic German will was executed, or at the time of death, New York may recognize the German holographic will. Matter sent back to develop a factual record on the domicile issue.

 

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