You are here: / Judges
, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS NON-JURY TRIAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the judgment (after a non-jury trial) of foreclosure and sale, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1303:

RPAPL 1303 requires that a notice titled “Help for Homeowners in Foreclosure” be delivered to the mortgagor along with the summons and complaint in residential foreclosure actions involving owner-occupied, one- to four-family dwellings … . “The statute mandates that the notice be in bold, 14-point type and printed on colored paper that is other than the color of the summons and complaint, and that the title of the notice be in bold, 20-point type” … . “Proper service of an RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and noncompliance mandates dismissal of the complaint” … . The foreclosing party bears the burden of establishing compliance with RPAPL 1303 … .

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not offer any evidence at trial establishing that it complied with the specific requirements of RPAPL 1303, or that it delivered such notice to Nodumehlezi [defendant] at all. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court’s reliance, in a posttrial decision, on documents that had been previously e-filed to establish the plaintiff’s compliance with RPAPL 1303 was improper, since Nodumehlezi had no opportunity to rebut the previously filed affidavit of service and the related documents … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Nodumehlezi, 2022 NY Slip Op 07212, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: Here there was a non-jury trial and plaintiff did not prove compliance with RPAPL 1303. The judgment of foreclosure and sale was reversed.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK MADE A DEFECTIVE MOTION (WHICH WAS REJECTED) FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND DID NOT CORRECT THE ERRORS IN THE MOTION FOR TEN YEARS; THE MAJORITY HELD THE ACTION HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND THE ACTION SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE CALENDAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action, by filing a motion for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default, demonstrated it did not intend to abandon the action and the matter, therefore, should be restored to the calendar. The facts that the motion was initially rejected and plaintiff delayed ten years before addressing the defects in the motion did not require a different result:

Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint in this action pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). The plaintiff demonstrated that it filed a motion, inter alia, for an order of reference on October 24, 2008, which was within one year of the defendants’ default in the action. Presenting this motion to the court was sufficient to demonstrate the plaintiff’s intent to have the action proceed, notwithstanding that the motion papers were ultimately rejected by the court as defective … .. Although our dissenting colleague notes that the plaintiff thereafter failed to explain its failure to fix the defects that resulted in the motion papers being rejected for a period of 10 years, once a plaintiff establishes “compliance with CPLR 3215(c),” it is “not required, under the plain language of that subdivision, to account for any additional periods of delay that may have occurred subsequent to the initial one-year period contemplated by CPLR 3215(c)” ,,, ,Thus, because the plaintiff did not abandon the action, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Lamarre, 2022 NY Slip Op 07056, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: The plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action made a defective motion for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default. That motion was sufficient to demonstrate plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action, even though motion was rejected and plaintiff did not correct the defects in the motion for ten years. The judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint and the matter should have been restored to the calendar.

 

,

IN REVIEWING THE GRAND JURY MINUTES, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNTS; RATHER THOSE COUNTS SHOULD BE SENT TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing County Court and reinstating three counts of the indictment, determined that inclusory concurrent counts in an indictment should not be dismissed prior to trial:

… [T]he parties entered a stipulation in lieu of motions authorizing County Court to review the grand jury minutes to determine whether there was legally sufficient evidence, adequate instructions or any defects in the proceedings. The court thereafter dismissed those counts charging criminal sexual act in the first degree as inclusory concurrent counts of the predatory sexual assault counts pursuant to CPL 300.30 (4), occasioning this appeal by the People.

“In assessing whether dismissal of an indictment is warranted under CPL 210.20 (1) (b), a reviewing court must assess whether the People presented legally sufficient evidence to establish the offense or offenses charged” … .. Although asked to review the indictment to ensure that the evidence submitted to the grand jury was legally sufficient, the court dismissed the counts at issue as inclusory. Even if certain counts charged in the indictment are inclusory concurrent counts, that does not require dismissal of those counts prior to trial or, upon trial, bar the submission of both the greater and the lesser counts to the jury for consideration. Rather, “[w]hen inclusory counts are submitted for consideration, they must be submitted in the alternative since a conviction on the greater count is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count” … . People v Provost, 2022 NY Slip Op 06966, Third Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Conclusory concurrent counts should be allowed to go to the jury in the alternative.

 

, ,

BOTH PARENTS OPPOSED VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS HAD NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON ONE OF THE CHILDREN; IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS WAS IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court’s ruling allowing visitation by the grandparents, which was opposed by both parents, was not demonstrated to be in the best interests of the children. The son is autistic and has frequent “meltdowns” which the grandparents allegedly didn’t handle appropriately. The matter was sent back for a new hearing in front of a different judge:

In granting visitation to the grandparents, Family Court essentially based its determination on its belief that the son would benefit from frequent contact with family members who love him, and that “equity demand[ed]” that the daughter have the same level of visitation. While contact with loving family members is certainly a laudable goal for these and any other children, the record does not support the court’s finding that the children’s best interests would be served by visitation with the grandparents. Indeed, to the contrary, the mother and the father, who were separated as of the time of the hearing but were united in their opposition to the grandparents’ visitation petition, offered testimony detailing the negative effects that visitation with the grandparents had on the son. Matter of Virginia HH. v Elijah II., 2022 NY Slip Op 06970, Third Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Here both parents opposed visitation with the grandparents and there was evidence such visitation had negative effects on one of the children, who is autistic. It was not demonstrated visitation with the grandparents was in the children’s best interests. The case was remitted for a new hearing before a different judge.

 

, , ,

IN THIS COMPLEX CASE INVOLVING ALLEGED MISUSE OF LAND GIFTED TO THE AUDUBON SOCIETY AS “FOREVER WILD” AND SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ARGUMENT THE DEED WAS VOID AB INITIO AND THEREFORE NEVER TRIGGERD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS REJECTED; THE DEED WAS DEEMED “VOIDABLE” AND THE STATUTE HAD THEREFORE RUN; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY SHOULD NOT HAVE SENT THE MATTER BACK TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the deed which was the subject of the action was not void ab initio, but rather was voidable, such that the statute of limitations had run on the action. Had the deed been void ab initio, the statute of limitations would not have run. This complex case, which involves alleged misuse of land gifted to the Audubon Society and subsequently sold is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here. There was a two-justice partial dissent which argued the majority should not have ordered the matter be transferred to a different judge:

… [W]e find that the 2013 conveyance of parcel B, held by the Audubon Society in fee simple absolute, was not void but instead merely voidable for any resultant diversion of the subject gift. The Attorney General’s recission claim was thus required to be brought within the applicable limitations period. It was not. We therefore agree with Supreme Court that this challenge to the validity of the 2013 conveyance is time-barred … .

From the dissent:

According to the majority, when deciding the motions at issue, Supreme Court offered its interpretation of the pertinent gift instruments and made certain findings and, therefore, cannot be impartial in resolving the merits … . In our view, it is premature at this stage to conclude that the court has predetermined and/or already addressed central issues in that action such that it cannot be fair. When the time comes, the parties can offer their competing interpretations of the gift instruments. At that time, the parties may rely on the court’s rationale and findings made in the April 2021 order. Alternatively, the parties might not do so. Regardless, any remaining issues to be resolved concerning the gift instruments will be better developed and briefed for the court to make an informed decision. Given that “every court retains continuing jurisdiction to reconsider its prior interlocutory orders during the pendency of the action” … , it cannot be presumed how the court will decide any remaining issues.

Moreover, no party has requested that a new judge be assigned. There have been no claims of hostility, bias or lack of impartiality by Supreme Court. Nor does the record bear out any such behavior. Accordingly, the parties seemingly have no qualms with the current judge. In view of the foregoing, we see no basis to assign a new judge for the underlying actions. Rockwell v Despart, 2022 NY Slip Op 06971, Thrid Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Here, if the deed which was the subject of the action had been void ab initio, the statute of limitations would never have been triggered. But the deed was deemed “voidable” and the statute had therefore run. The two-justice dissent argued the parties were happy with the judge and there was no reason to assume the judge had permanently predetermined any issues. Therefore the majority should not have ordered the matter transferred to a different judge.

 

, ,

BEFORE SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, THE COURT DID NOT MAKE A FINDING WHETHER THE TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK FOR ANY PREDICATE VIOLENT FELONY WAS TOLLED BY A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION; THE ISSUE SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND WAS PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, remitting the matter for resentencing, determined the court did not make a finding about whether the 10-year look-back for a predicate violent felony was tolled by periods of incarceration. The issue survives a waiver of appeal and, because the issue is clear from the record, was properly raised for the first time on appeal:

To qualify as a predicate violent felony, the sentence for the prior violent felony “must have been imposed not more than [10] years before commission of the felony of which the defendant presently stands convicted” (Penal Law § 70.04 [1] [b] [iv]). “In calculating this 10-year look-back period, ‘any period of time during which the person was incarcerated for any reason between the time of commission of the previous felony and the time of commission of the present felony shall be excluded and such 10-year period shall be extended by a period or periods equal to the time served under such incarceration'” … .

The instant offense occurred on March 3, 2018. Prior to sentencing, the People filed a predicate statement indicating that defendant had previously been convicted of a violent felony in 2004 … . The People also submitted a presentence report which demonstrated that defendant was convicted of additional felonies in 2010 and 2014, but — as the People concede — neither the predicate statement nor the presentence report established the time periods during which defendant was incarcerated during the time between the two violent felonies in order to toll the 10-year look-back period … . People v Faulkner, 2022 NY Slip Op 06957, Third Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point: Before sentencing defendant as a second violent felony offender, the sentencing court did not make a finding whether the ten-year look-back for a predicate violent felony was tolled by a period of incarceration. The issue survives a waiver of appeal and was properly raised for the first time on appeal. The matter was remitted for resentencing.

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNDER EITHER CPLR 5015 OR 317; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment did not meet the criteria of either CPLR 5015(a)(1) or CPLR 317:

“A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action” … . * * *

Here, the defendant failed to provide a “detailed and credible explanation” for the default … . Rather, the defendant submitted only an affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer averring that the defendant’s agent for process had emailed the summons and complaint to the servicer, and the complaint had been “routed in error to the incorrect email address within” the servicer, which prevented the servicer from “timely notify[ing] its counsel of the [instant] action.” That conclusory and nondetailed allegation does not constitute a reasonable excuse warranting vacatur of the default … . * * *

Although the defendant expressly moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) only, the Supreme Court properly considered whether the defendant set forth grounds to vacate its default pursuant to CPLR 317 … . CPLR 317 provides, in relevant part, that a party served with a summons other than by personal delivery and who does not appear “may be allowed to defend the action within one year after he [or she] obtains knowledge of entry of the judgment . . . upon a finding of the court that he [or she] did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense.” A defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 317 is not required to set forth a reasonable excuse for the delay in answering the complaint … . However, “‘to support a determination granting relief under CPLR 317, a party must still demonstrate, and the Court must find, that the party did not receive actual notice of the summons and complaint in time to defend the action'” … .

… [T]he defendant did not even deny receipt of the summons and complaint. 259 Milford, LLC v FV-1, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06898, Second Dept 12-7-22

Practice Point: The criteria for vacation of a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 and 317 are different and are explained in this decision. The defendant did not meet the criteria for either statute.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY-RELATED ACTIONS WERE NOT WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS SUCH THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DELAYS WARRANTED VACATING THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND PAYMENT OF $3000 TO DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this traffic accident case should not have been dismissed as a discovery sanction. But defendant’s motion to vacate the note of issue due to plaintiff’s delay in disclosing prior relevant injuries should have been granted. In addition the appellate court ordered plaintiff’s attorney to pay defendants’ attorney $3000:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to the extent of directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126(3). Although the plaintiff initially failed to provide authorizations for the release of medical records relating to pertinent injuries which pre-date the subject accident, the plaintiff did provide date-restricted authorizations for the release of medical records relating to pertinent injuries approximately one week after the defendants requested them. … [D]efendants did not clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff’s discovery-related conduct was willful and contumacious … .

However, in light of the plaintiff’s delay in disclosing information about prior injuries that bear on the controversy and would assist preparation for trial … . the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion to the extent of vacating the note of issue … , directing the plaintiff to provide the defendants with authorizations permitting the release of medical records relating to pertinent injuries which pre-date the subject accident, and directing the plaintiff’s attorney to pay the sum of $3,000 to the defendants’ attorney….. Lopez v Maggies Paratransit Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 06793, Second Dept 11-30-22

Practice Point: Here in this traffic accident case plaintiff’s delays in providing information about prior relevant injuries warranted vacating the note of issue and payment of $3000 by plaintiff’s attorney to defendants’ attorney.

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT’S BEST INTERESTS RULING IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING DID NOT HAVE A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN THE RECORD; THE APPELLATE DIVISION AWARDED PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY TO MOTHER (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s petition for a modification of custody should have been granted:

Having concluded that Family Court’s determination lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record, we are empowered to make our own independent determination of the child’s best interests, and our authority in that regard is as broad as that of Family Court … . In reviewing the record, we note that the mother testified without contradiction that she does not abuse alcohol or drugs, and while she previously struggled with her mental health, the hearing evidence showed that she has overcome that challenge and achieved a stable home life. By contrast, we find problematic the evidence of the father’s regular drinking in the child’s presence and his apparent lack of candor during the DWI assessment, as well as the dirty and unkempt condition of his apartment. We also find significant the strong position of the appellate attorney for the child in support of the mother’s petition … . In light of the foregoing, we hold that the child’s best interests are served by having the parents continue to share joint legal custody but awarding primary physical custody to the mother, with parenting time for the father as the parties shall mutually agree … . Matter of Brittni P. v Michael P., 2022 NY Slip Op 06667, Third Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: The appellate court, reversing Family Court, held the evidence did not support Family Court’s best interests ruling continuing primary physical custody with father. The appellate court undertook its own analysis of the record and awarded primary physical custody to mother.

 

, ,

IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING, MOTHER’S PROOF OF THE CHILD’S INJURIES IN FATHER’S CARE AND HER IMPROVED PARENTING SKILLS AND LIVING CONDITIONS WAS SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND FATHER’S MOTION TO DISMISS; THE JUDGE APPEARS TO HAVE PREJUDGED THE CASE; MATTER REMITTED TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the case to a different judge, determined mother’s petition for a modification of custody should not have been dismissed:

“A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order must first show that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the existing custody order that then warrants an inquiry into what custodial arrangement is in the best interests of the child” … .. “Only after this threshold hurdle has been met will the court conduct a best interests analysis” … . “When, as here, Family Court is tasked with deciding a motion to dismiss at the close of the petitioner’s proof, the court must accept the petitioner’s evidence as true and afford the petitioner every favorable inference that could reasonably be drawn from that evidence, including resolving all credibility questions in the petitioner’s favor” … . * * *

After reviewing the record, we find that the mother’s proof regarding injuries suffered by the child during the father’s parenting time, taken together with the mother’s improved parenting abilities and living conditions, demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss … . * * *

Based on Family Court’s comments regarding its predispositions and its inappropriate comment regarding the mother’s credibility, Family Court appears to have prejudged the case … . Therefore, this matter must be remitted for a new hearing before a different judge. Matter of Nicole B. v Franklin A., 2022 NY Slip Op 06672, Third Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here the evidence of the child’s injuries in father’s care and mother’s improved parenting skills and living conditions was sufficient to support her petition for a modification of custody. Father’s motion to dismiss the petition should not have been granted. The judge’s remarks about mother’s credibility and his encouraging father to make a motion to dismiss indicated the judge had prejudged the case. The matter was sent back to be heard by a different judge.

 

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