You are here: / Debtor-Creditor
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
, ,

THE MEDICAL CENTER WAS ENTITLED TO THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE PEDESTRIAN INJURED BY PLAINTIFF’S TAXI; THE FACT THAT THE PEDESTRIAN HAD SETTLED HIS ACTION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF TAXI COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO THE MEDICAL CENTER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant medical center was entitled to the no-fault benefits assigned to it by the pedestrian injured by plaintiff’s taxi in this traffic accident case. The fact that the pedestrian had settled his action against the plaintiff taxi company had no bearing on the assignment of the no-fault benefits to the medical center:

“[A]n account debtor is authorized to pay the assignor until the account debtor receives notification that the amount due or to become due has been assigned and that payment is to be made to the assignee ” … . To establish that it did not receive notice of the assignment, the plaintiff relies solely on an affidavit of an employee of the plaintiff’s claims administrator, who asserted that the claims administrator never received the faxed notice on July 11, 2011. The employee’s assertion, however, was belied by overwhelming documentary evidence. Indeed, a denial of claim form dated July 20, 2011, which was prepared by the plaintiff’s claims administrator and attached to the employee’s affidavit, designated the defendant as the assignee. In addition, the defendant submitted an arbitration decision dated January 3, 2012, in which [the pedestrian’s] arbitration claim against the plaintiff for no-fault benefits was dismissed on the ground that he lacked standing because he assigned the claims for no-fault benefits. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it received notice of the assignment. Murzik Taxi, Inc. v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 02302, Second Dept 4-14-21

 

/0 Comments/by
,

PLAINTIFF ESTATE MET THE CRITERIA FOR ATTACHMENT AGAINST REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY DEFENDANTS WHO OWNED AND/OR OPERATED A LIMOUSINE RENTAL SERVICE; THE LIMOUSINE WAS INVOVLED IN A HORRIFIC ACCIDENT KILLING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND 19 OTHERS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, over a concurring memorandum, determined the criteria for attachment were met by plaintiff against real property owned by the Hussain defendants. The Hussain defendants owned and/or operated a business which rented a limousine involved in an accident killing plaintiff’s decedent and 19 others:

Plaintiff demonstrated a probability of success on his claims [relating the maintenance of the limousine].

Plaintiff … pointed to CPLR 6201 (3), which, because he is likely to succeed in recovering a money judgment against defendants, applies if defendants “assigned, disposed of, encumbered or secreted property,” or were about to do so, with the “intent to defraud [their] creditors or frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in plaintiff’s favor” … . … As “[t]he mere removal or assignment or other disposition of property is not grounds for attachment,” however, plaintiff was further required to show that defendants offered the four properties for sale with the requisite intent to either defraud their creditors or frustrate a potential money judgment  … . …

Plaintiff … met his burden of showing that defendants harbored the requisite intent in attempting to dispose of the parcels at issue and, in the absence of any proof to rebut that showing, he was properly granted confirmation under CPLR 6201 (3) … . …

Plaintiff was … entitled to confirmation with regard to Shahed Hussain because he was “a nondomiciliary residing without the state” within the meaning of CPLR 6201 (1). Plaintiff represented, with support from annexed newspaper accounts, that Shahed Hussain left New York for Pakistan in March 2018 and had no plans to return to the United States. Halse v Hussain, 2021 NY Slip Op 02032, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , , ,

THE COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEE MET THE DEFINITION OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY; THE COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEES DO NOT APPLY; THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) although guarantees generally are not instruments for the payment of money within the meaning of CPLR 3213, the language of the guarantee was unconditional and therefore met the criteria of such an instrument; (2) the COVID-19-related provision of the NYC Administrative Code and executive orders, prohibiting enforcement of commercial lease guarantees, do not apply where the business were not required to cease operations; (3) the warranty of habitability was not available as a defense because of the language of the guarantee; and (4) a commercial tenant cannot assert the warranty of habitability:

While a guarantee of both payment and performance does not qualify as an instrument for the payment of money only under CPLR 3213 … , paragraph 1 of the guaranty signed by defendants includes an unconditional obligation to pay all rent and additional rent owed under the sublease, and therefore does so qualify … ; “it required no additional performance by plaintiff[] as a condition precedent to payment or otherwise made defendant[s’] promise to pay something other than unconditional” … .

While the prohibition on the enforcement of commercial lease guaranties against natural persons under Administrative Code of City of NY § 22-1005 applies to businesses that were required to “cease operation” or “close to members of the public” under executive orders 202.3, 202.6, or 202.7, issued in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, defendants never asserted that the nonparty subtenant ceased operations or closed to the public as a result of those orders.

Defendants’ claim that they properly raised warranty of habitability defenses under the sublease is without merit. Such defenses are not available to defendants because all defenses under the guaranty, with the exception of prior payment, were waived. Moreover, a commercial tenant cannot avail itself of the statutory warranty of habitability (see Real Property Law § 235-b …). iPayment, Inc. v Silverman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01846, First Dept 3-25-21

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for an order of attachment should not have been granted:

“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” … . “Affidavits containing allegations raising a mere suspicion of an intent to defraud are insufficient. It must appear that such fraudulent intent really existed in the defendant’s mind” … . The “mere removal, assignment or other disposition of property is not grounds for attachment” … . Cyngiel v Krigsman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01391, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

/by
, ,

A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT FOR WHICH A JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED AFTER DECEDENT’S DEATH MAY NOT BE ENTERED IN DECEDENT’S NAME PURSUANT TO CPLR 5016 (d); THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRIORITY IN SETTLING THE ESTATE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined a stipulation of settlement in favor of decedent which was the basis of a judgment entered after decedent’s death cannot, pursuant to CPLR 5016 (d), be entered in his or her own name, and therefore is not entitled to priority in settling the estate:

An “accepted offer to compromise pursuant to [CPLR] 3221” (CPLR 5016 [d]) refers to a precise mechanism, which allows a party against whom a claim is asserted, 10 days before trial, to “serve upon the claimant a written offer to allow judgment to be taken against him [or her] for a sum or property or to the effect therein specified, with costs then accrued. If within [10] days thereafter the claimant serves a written notice that he [or she] accepts the offer, either party may file the summons, complaint and offer, with proof of acceptance, and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment accordingly” (CPLR 3221). Here, there was no written offer or written acceptance; rather, the stipulation occurred on the record before Supreme Court, and the filing in the Clerk’s Office occurred after petitioner secured the judgment and order from Supreme Court … .

We decline to adopt the broad interpretation of CPLR 5016 (d), as petitioner urges … . The Legislature, in creating CPLR 5016 (d), set forth three distinct situations where a post-mortem judgment may be entered against the decedent in his or her own name, thus bestowing priority to the creditor. None of these three provisions was met here. Matter of Uccellini, 2021 NY Slip Op 01303, Third Dept 3-4-21

 

/by
, ,

THE JUDGMENT LIEN WAS NOT DOCKETED UNDER THE SELLER’S SURNAME; THEREFORE THE BUYER’S ACTION FOR A JUDGMENT QUIETING TITLE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff-buyer was entitled to judgment on his quiet title cause of action and to a declaration that the property is not subject to the defendant’s judgment lien. The judgment was not docketed under the seller’s surname:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action to quiet title and for a declaration that the real property at issue is not subject to the defendant’s judgment lien. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, among other things, the deposition transcript of a supervisor of the Docket Department of the Kings County Clerk’s Office (hereinafter the supervisor). The supervisor testified at her deposition that the judgment at issue was not docketed under “Paul”—the surname of the title owner of the property. Thus, no valid lien against the property was created (see CPLR 5018[c][1] …). Moreover, there is no dispute that the plaintiff had no actual or constructive notice of a judgment lien on the property … .

In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Any alleged defects in the docketing procedure employed by the Kings County Clerk’s Office are not attributable to a bona fide purchaser of the property … . Charles v Berman, 2021 NY Slip Op 00542, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

/by
, ,

SETTLEMENT CONFESSIONS OF JUDGMENT WERE VALID AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the settlement confessions of judgment were valid and should not have been vacated. The Second Department noted that vacating a judgment entered by filing a confession of judgment requires bringing a plenary action, which the defendants did not do. But, because Supreme Court reached the merits, the Second Department reversed on the merits:

“Generally, a person seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon the filing of an affidavit of confession of judgment must commence a separate plenary action for that relief”… . Here, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in its order, the grounds for vacatur relied upon by the defendants do not fall within an exception to the general rule. Accordingly, the court should have denied the defendants’ motion for failure to commence a plenary action … . However, the court did address the merits of the defendants’ motion, and in the interest of judicial economy, we also consider the merits.

“Construction of an unambiguous contract is a matter of law, and the intention of the parties may be gathered from the four corners of the instrument and should be enforced according to its terms” … . Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, there is no language in the merchant agreements limiting the plaintiff’s authority to file the settlement confessions of judgment. Moreover, the settlement agreement and settlement confessions of judgment clearly and unambiguously permitted the plaintiff to file the settlement confessions of judgment in the event the defendants breached the terms of the settlement agreement. Ace Funding Source, LLC v Myka Cellars, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00538, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

/by
,

IN THIS ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE AFFIDAVITS OF CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, INFORMATION SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in an action seeking to enforce affidavits of confession of judgment, determined the motion to quash information subpoenas should not have been granted:

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to quash the information subpoenas. CPLR 5223 compels disclosure of “all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment.” A judgment creditor is entitled to discovery from either the judgment debtor or a third party in order “to determine whether the judgment debtor[ ] concealed any assets or transferred any assets so as to defraud the judgment creditor or improperly prevented the collection of the underlying judgment” … . …

… [A] party moving to quash a subpoena has the initial burden of establishing either that the requested disclosure “is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious” … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the fact that they are seeking to rescind the judgment by confession in a separate action against the plaintiffs, without more, does not preclude enforcement of the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants … . Furthermore, the defendants failed to proffer any evidence that the requested disclosure is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious. Lisogor v Nature’s Delight, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 07879, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

/by
, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR THE HARSH REMEDY OF ATTACHMENT WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the criteria for an order of attachment were not met. The court noted that suspicion of an intent to defraud and the removal, assignment or disposition of property is not enough to warrant the harsh remedy of attachment:

CPLR 6212(a) provides that, on a motion for an order of attachment, “the plaintiff shall show, by affidavit and such other written evidence as may be submitted, that there is a cause of action, that it is probable that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, that one or more grounds for attachment provided in section 6201 exist, and that the amount demanded from the defendant exceeds all counterclaims known to the plaintiff.” “Attachment is considered a harsh remedy and CPLR 6201 is strictly construed in favor of those against whom it may be employed” … .

The plaintiffs failed to make an adequate evidentiary showing that each of the defendants is a nondomiciliary residing without the state (see CPLR 6201[1]; see also General Construction Law § 35). Moreover, the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendants were attempting to defraud creditors or frustrate enforcement of a possible judgment against them (see CPLR 6201[3]) “was devoid of evidentiary support” … . “The fact that the affidavits in support of an attachment contain allegations raising a suspicion of an intent to defraud is not enough. It must appear that such fraudulent intent really existed in the defendant’s mind” … , and “the mere removal, assignment or other disposition of property is not grounds for attachment” … . 651 Bay St., LLC v Discenza, 2020 NY Slip Op 07331, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

/by
, ,

PURPORTED MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MADE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT REVIVE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE PURCHASERS OF THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY OR THE BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE SECURED BY THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined mortgage payments allegedly made after the expiration of the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action did not revive the statute of limitations as against defendants, who purchased the encumbered property, and defendant bank which issued a mortgage secured by the property:

… [T]he tolling or revival effect of partial payments differs as between the payor — the Gureckis — and subsequent purchasers — defendants (see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [2]). [A] qualifying partial payment that is made before the expiration of the statute of limitations will renew the statute of limitations against any subsequent purchaser (see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [2] [2d par] .. ). In contrast, a qualifying partial payment that is made after the expiration of the statute of limitations will only revive the statute of limitations as to a subsequent purchaser who did not give value or who had actual notice of the making of the payment … . Here, … at the time that [the payments] were made the statute of limitations had expired. Given that the record is clear that defendants are purchasers for value and plaintiff put forth no evidence that defendants had actual notice of the … payments, the payments did not have the effect of reviving the statute of limitations as to defendants (see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [2] …). Gurecki v Gurecki, 2020 NY Slip Op 07257, Third Dept 12-3-20

 

/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2021 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy