You are here: / Debtor-Creditor
, ,

COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE THE GOODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING PAYMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3016, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DISPUTE EACH ITEM, A GENERAL DENIAL WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract action should not have been granted. The criteria for a motion pursuant to CPLR 3016 (f) alleging the failure to pay for delivered goods were not met because the complaint did not sufficiently describe the goods and the prices. Therefore a general denial, as opposed to specific denials re: the items listed in the complaint, was sufficient. In addition defendant alleged the goods were not timely delivered, which is a valid defense that does not require specifically disputing each item described in the complaint:

In an action involving, inter alia, goods sold and delivered, CPLR 3016(f) permits a plaintiff to “set forth and number in his [or her] verified complaint the items of his [or her] claim and the reasonable value or agreed price of each.” “To meet the requirements of CPLR 3016(f), a complaint must contain a listing of the goods or services provided, with enough detail that it may readily be examined and its correctness tested entry by entry'” … . If the complaint meets these requirements, the defendant may not generally deny allegations of the complaint, but must, instead, specifically dispute the items on the plaintiff’s list … .

Here, the complaint failed to comply with CPLR 3016(f). The three invoices failed to state the price of each individual invoice item, or the date when each item was delivered. Although it was acknowledged that partial payment was made, the plaintiff did not specify what the partial payment was for. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant made a partial payment toward one invoice without specifying to which of the invoiced items the defendant’s payment was applied … .

In any event, even assuming  CPLR 3016(f) was complied with, a general denial is sufficient where a defense to the cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3016(f) speaks to the “entirety of the parties’ dealings” … . In this case, the defense—that the plaintiff breached the contract by untimely delivering the items in the contract—goes to the entirety of the parties’ dealings. Further, damages awarded on the counterclaim may offset liability for goods sold and delivered if the circumstances warrant it … . SSG Door & Hardware, Inc. v APS Contr., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07481, Second Dept 11-7-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE THE GOODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING PAYMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3016, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DISPUTE EACH ITEM, A GENERAL DENIAL WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE THE GOODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING PAYMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3016, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DISPUTE EACH ITEM, A GENERAL DENIAL WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (BREACH OF CONTRACT, CIVIL PROCEDURE, COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE THE GOODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING PAYMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3016, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DISPUTE EACH ITEM, A GENERAL DENIAL WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3016 (COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE THE GOODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING PAYMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3016, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DISPUTE EACH ITEM, A GENERAL DENIAL WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although plaintiff had defaulted on an installment land sale contract (re: the payment of school taxes), defendant was not entitled to specific performance and was not entitled to cancellation of the contract and retention of the installment payments:

“[T]he execution of a[n installment] contract for the purchase of real estate and the making of a part payment gives a contract vendee equitable title to the property and an equitable lien in the amount of the payment” … . The contract vendor, in turn, “holds the legal title in trust for the vendee, subject to the vendor’s equitable lien for the payment of the purchase price in accordance with the terms of the contract” … . “Accordingly, the vendee under a land sale contract has acquired an interest in the property that must be extinguished before the vendor can resume possession, notwithstanding whether a provision in the contract provides that in the event of the vendee’s uncured default . . ., the vendor has the right to declare the contract terminated and repossess the premises. A vendor may not enforce his [or her] rights by an action in ejectment, but must instead proceed to foreclose the vendee’s equitable title or bring an action at law for the purchase price” … .

Plaintiff, having made substantial payments to defendant pursuant to the installment land sale contract at issue, acquired equitable title to the property and an equitable lien in the amount of all payments made pursuant to the contract. Thus, despite plaintiff’s default under the contract, defendant cannot obtain relief under the provision of the rider that provides for cancellation of the contract and forfeiture of all monies paid by plaintiff as liquidated damages… . Accordingly, to the extent that defendant’s motion sought a declaration to that effect, it must be denied. Defendant’s remedies are, instead, limited to foreclosing plaintiff’s equitable title or bringing an action at law for the purchase price of the property, neither of which defendant has sought … . Further, because defendant could not summarily cancel the contract and resume possession, plaintiff is entitled to continued possession of the premises during such time. Cloke v Findlan, 2018 NY Slip Op 07220. Third Dept 10-25-18

REAL ESTATE (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (REAL ESTATE, INSTALLMENT CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT))/INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT  (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff did not submit admissible proof that defendant was in default. The evidence did not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court also held that a nonparty’s motion to intervene was properly denied as untimely and the Judiciary Law 489 affirmative defense was properly struck. Judiciary Law 489 prohibits buying another’s debt for the purpose of bringing a court action, but debts exceeding $500,000 are exempt. The debts purchased here exceeded $500,000:

The determination to deny Fulton Holdings’ motion for leave to intervene in the action was a provident exercise of discretion. “Intervention under CPLR 1012 and 1013 requires a timely motion” … . Here, Fulton Holdings’ motion was not timely, as it was not made until approximately 14 months after Fulton Holdings had notice that the foreclosure action was pending … . …

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence of default in admissible form. To evince the mortgagor’s default, the plaintiff submitted the affidavits of Igor Fleyshmakher, the plaintiff’s managing member, and Frank Quintana, the president of 179 Court Street Holding Corp. (hereinafter 179 Court), a prior holder of the mortgage. Fleyshmakher and Quintana both attested to the date of the last payment allegedly received on the mortgage. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility, under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, of any records relied upon by Fleyshmakher and Quintana (see CPLR 4518[a]…). Neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana laid a foundation for, or even identified, the records upon which they relied. Moreover, neither the plaintiff nor 179 Court acquired its interest in the mortgage until after the alleged default date. Thus, neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana could have established the loan’s payment history up to and including the date of default by relying on their respective employers’ records. Neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana asserted that they consulted or relied on the records of 179 Court’s predecessor-in-interest. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the mortgagor’s default … . Fulton Holding Group, LLC v Lindoff, 2018 NY Slip Op 07096, Second Dept 10-24-18

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION, FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4518 (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1012, 1013 (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (JUDICIARY LAW 489, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIARY 489 FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly searched the record and granted defendant’s summary judgment in this action on a promissory note. The agreement at issue was an illegal contract involving a fee-splitting arrangement between physicians and non-physicians which is prohibited by the Education Law:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the causes of action to recover the balance due on the promissory note and for an award of costs and attorney’s fees, and, upon searching the record, to award the defendants summary judgment dismissing those causes of action. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the evidence submitted by the parties in connection with the motion for summary judgment established, prima facie, that the agreement and the promissory note were a pretext for an unlawful fee-splitting arrangement in violation of the Education Law because they circumvented New York’s prohibition on physicians splitting fees with nonphysicians (see Education Law §§ 6509-a, 6530[19] … ). “It is the settled law of this State (and probably of every other State) that a party to an illegal contract cannot ask a court of law to help him [or her] carry out his [or her] illegal object, nor can such a person plead or prove in any court a case in which he [or she], as a basis for his [or her] claim, must show forth his [or her] illegal purpose” … . “Where the parties’ arrangement is illegal the law will not extend its aid to either of the parties . . . or listen to their complaints against each other, but will leave them where their own acts have placed them'” … . Linchitz Practice Mgt., Inc. v Daat Med. Mgt., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06891, Second Dept 10-17-18

CONTRACT LAW (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/PHYSICIANS (FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/FEE-SPLITTING (PHYSICIANS, FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (PHYSICIANS, FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 should have been granted. Plaintiff met her burden by submitting the notes and guarantees and an affidavit of nonpayment. The evidence submitted by the defendants was deemed conclusory and designed to create a feigned question of fact:

Plaintiff met her initial burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “by submitting the notes and guarantees, together with an affidavit of nonpayment” … . In opposition, defendants failed ” to establish, by admissible evidence, the existence of a triable issue [of fact] with respect to a bona fide defense' ” … . Defendants contend that they are entitled to an offset because plaintiff allegedly breached a related stock purchase agreement and, following the execution of the stock purchase agreement, coerced them into paying additional funds to which plaintiff was not entitled through economic duress. The evidence submitted by defendants in support of those contentions, however, is conclusory, unsubstantiated, and internally inconsistent in a manner that appears “designed to raise feigned factual issues in an effort to avoid the consequences” of plaintiff's otherwise valid motion for summary judgment on her claim to recover on the promissory notes and guarantees … . Among other things, the affidavit of defendants' expert public accountant is “speculative and conclusory inasmuch as the expert failed to submit the data upon which he based his opinions. The affidavit thus lacks an adequate factual foundation and is of no probative value” . Finally, in addition to failing to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to economic duress, defendants waived any such claim “in light of the inordinate length of time which passed between the alleged duress and the assertion of the claim” … . Birjukow v Niagara Coating Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06637, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT)).CPLR 3213  (DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled, pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1501 and the statute of limitations, to cancel and discharge a mortgage which defendant bank (Deutsche Bank) had accelerated more than six years before. Defendant bank argued that a letter sent by the original property owner, Aird (who had taken out the mortgage), pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-101, acknowledged the debt and revived the time-barred claim. Supreme Court properly rejected that argument:

“General Obligations Law § 17-101 effectively revives a time-barred claim when the debtor has signed a writing which validly acknowledges the debt” … . To constitute a valid acknowledgment, a “writing must be signed and recognize an existing debt and must contain nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it” … . Contrary to Deutsche Bank's contention, a letter written by Aird that accompanied his second short sale package submitted to Deutsche Bank's loan servicer did not constitute an unqualified acknowledgment of the debt or manifest a promise to repay the debt sufficient to reset the running of the statute of limitations … . Karpa Realty Group, LLC v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 05921, Second Dept 8-29-18

Similar issues and result in Yadegar v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co, 2018 NY Slip Op 05957, Second Dept 8-29-18

FORECLOSURE (LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (FORECLOSURE, GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101 LETTER DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEBT AND THEREBY REVIVE A TIME-BARRED FORECLOSURE ACTION, MORTGAGE PROPERLY CANCELED AND DISCHARGED IN THIS RPAPL 1501 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

ASSIGNMENT OF AN INTEREST IN A JUDGMENT WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH THE PARTY WHO PAID THE ASSIGNOR HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE ASSIGNMENT, PAYMENT MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO THE ASSIGNOR TREATED AS IF MADE TO THE ASSIGNEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, held that a payment made in good faith to a party (Bynum) who had already assigned his interest in a judgment should be treated as if payment had been made to the right party (the assignee), and the assignment was valid, even though the party who made the payment (Scheiner) was not notified of it:

“An obligor is entitled to a credit for payments mistakenly made to the assignor rather than to the assignee when those payments are made in good faith and in ignorance of the assignment” … . Here, the plaintiffs conceded that Scheiner was entitled to a credit for the $12,000 payment he made to Bynum, and in determining the plaintiffs' motion and upon vacating the satisfaction of judgment, the Supreme Court recalculated the amount of the judgment to reflect that offset. Contrary to the court's determination, the failure to notify Scheiner of the assignment did not render the assignment ineffective … . 1051 Corp v Bynum, 2018 NY Slip Op 05740, Second Dept 8-15-18

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (ASSIGNMENT OF AN INTEREST IN A JUDGMENT WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH THE PARTY WHO PAID THE ASSIGNOR HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE ASSIGNMENT, PAYMENT MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO THE ASSIGNOR TREATED AS IF MADE TO THE ASSIGNEE (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGMENTS (ASSIGNMENT OF AN INTEREST IN A JUDGMENT WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH THE PARTY WHO PAID THE ASSIGNOR HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE ASSIGNMENT, PAYMENT MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO THE ASSIGNOR TREATED AS IF MADE TO THE ASSIGNEE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner did not demonstrate the tenant, Cohen, violated a court order directing Cohen to pay his rent directly to the petitioner, who had a judgment against Cohen’s landlord. The court order required that Cohen pay any rent due under the lease to petitioner (CPLR 5225). However, the landlord terminated Cohen’s lease. Therefore Cohen did not not violate the order and should not have been held in civil contempt:

Here, the petitioner failed to establish that Cohen disobeyed the … order, which required him to “pay rent to petitioner as due under the lease” … . J…  Since Cohen’s lease … expired on July 31, 2015, on August 1, 2015, Cohen became a holdover tenant. Damages attributable to Cohen’s continued occupation of the premises were not due “under the lease,” but rather, were due as use and occupancy for the reasonable value of the premises … . “The obligation to pay for use and occupancy does not arise from an underlying contract between the landlord and the occupant” … . “Rather, an occupant’s duty to pay the landlord for its use and occupancy of the premises is predicated upon the theory of quantum meruit, and is imposed by law for the purpose of bringing about justice without reference to the intention of the parties” … . Accordingly, the motion to hold Cohen in contempt should have been denied. Matter of First Am. Tit. Ins. Co. v Cohen, 2018 NY Slip Op 05306, Second Dept 7-18-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTEMPT, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5225 (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTEMPT, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CONTEMPT, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5225 (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTEMPT, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (CONTEMPT, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5225 (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTEMPT, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTEMPT (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY RENT DUE UNDER THE LEASE TO THE LANDLORD’S CREDITOR, TENANT STOPPED PAYING THE RENT TO THE CREDITOR ONLY AFTER THE LANDLORD TERMINATED THE LEASE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Office of Victim Services (OVS) properly paid out the assets of an incarcerated offender to the first crime victim to obtain a judgment. The statute does not provide for retaining assets for other crime victims who may subsequently obtain a judgment against the offender:

“Executive Law § 632—a sets forth a statutory scheme intended to improve the ability of crime victims to obtain full and just compensation from the person(s) convicted of the crime” …  by “allow[ing] crime victims or their representatives to sue the convicted criminals who harmed them when the criminals receive substantial sums of money from virtually any source” and protecting those funds while litigation is pending … . …

There is no doubt that OVS complied with its express obligations under the statute. The problem is that the statute provides no guidance as to how OVS is to respond where, as here, multiple crime victims seek to recover and the preserved assets of a convicted person are inadequate … . OVS viewed its response to be governed by the general rule that, “[w]here two or more . . . orders affecting the same interest in personal property or debt are filed, the proceeds of the property or debt shall be applied in the order of filing,” and acted to have the preserved assets released to satisfy the first judgment obtained by a victim (CPLR 5234 [c]). …

The Legislature could have easily included language in Executive Law § 632-a that substituted a special rule of priority for the one set forth in CPLR 5234 (c), directed OVS to leave any provisional remedies in place until all victims had obtained judgments or created some mechanism for dividing the preserved assets between them. It did not do so, and “‘[a] court cannot by implication supply in a statute a provision which it is reasonable to suppose the Legislature intended intentionally to omit'” … . Waldman v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05000, Third Dept 7-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, CRIME VICTIMS, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/CRIME VICTIMS (ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER,  EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES (OVS) (ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, CRIME VICTIMS, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CRIME VICTIMS, ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CRIME VICTIMS, ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, PRIORITY OF JUDGMENTS, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 5234 (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CRIME VICTIMS, ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, PRIORITY OF JUDGMENTS, EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE MORE THAN ONE CRIME VICTIM OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSETS OF THE OFFENDER, HERE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES PROPERLY PAID OUT THE ASSETS TO THE FIRST CRIME VICTIM WHO OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not show that there was a continuity of ownership such that, pursuant to the de facto merger doctrine, the assets of defendant NYP Ag should be used to satisfy a judgment against NYP Management:

“Traditionally, courts have considered several factors in determining whether a de facto merger has occurred: (1) continuity of ownership; (2) a cessation of ordinary business and dissolution of the predecessor as soon as practically and legally possible; (3) assumption by the successor of the liabilities ordinarily necessary for the uninterrupted continuation of the business of the predecessor; and (4) a continuity of management, personnel, physical location, assets, and general business operation” … . …

… [C]ourts have flexibility in determining whether a transaction constitutes a de facto merger. While factors such as shareholder and management continuity will be evidence that a de facto merger has occurred . . . , those factors alone should not be determinative” … . … “[I]n non-tort actions, continuity of ownership is the essence of a merger’ ” … , and is a necessary predicate to finding a de facto merger…  Here, inasmuch as [plaintiff] failed to establish continuity of ownership, it failed to establish that there was a de facto merger between the two corporations … . R&D Electronics, Inc. v NYP Mgt., Co., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04151, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

CORPORATION LAW (PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CORPORATION LAW, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT))/DE FACTOR MERGER (CORPORATION LAW, DEBTOR-CREDITOR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUITY OF OWNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE ASSETS OF ONE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FOURTH DEPT))

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