You are here: / Uniform Commercial Code
, , ,

DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK POSSESSED THE CORRECT VERSION OF THE NOTE, AND, THEREFORE, WHETHER THE BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this foreclosure action raised a question of fact whether the bank possessed the relevant note, and therefore had standing, when the action was commenced:

“Pursuant to article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a note can be endorsed, or signed over, to a new owner” … . A note can also be endorsed in blank, naming no specific payee, which makes it a bearer instrument, so that any party that possesses it has the legal authority to enforce it (see UCC 3-202[1]; 3-204[2] …). …

The version of the note that contained the special endorsement by GreenPoint to GMAC …, which was submitted in the 2008 foreclosure action, was not consistent with the endorsement in blank by GreenPoint. If the note was specially endorsed to GMAC, it would subsequently had to have been specially endorsed to the plaintiff or endorsed in blank by GMAC in order for the plaintiff to enforce it (see UCC 3-202[1]; 3-204[1] … ). Thus, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff possessed the legal authority to enforce the note at the time this action was commenced … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Rozo-Castellanos, 2022 NY Slip Op 00457, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE NOTE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

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

Where, as here, the plaintiff’s standing has been placed in issue by the defendant’s answer, the plaintiff must prove its standing as part of its prima facie showing … . “[A] plaintiff may demonstrate its standing in a foreclosure action through proof that it was in possession of the subject note endorsed in blank, or the subject note and a firmly affixed allonge endorsed in blank, at the time of commencement of the action” … .

Here, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and for an order of reference, as the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action. Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonge, which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the note, was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . The affidavit of the plaintiff’s employee and the copy of the note attached thereto which were submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment did not clarify whether the allonge was firmly affixed to the note … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Calomarde, 2022 NY Slip Op 00428, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

,

DEFENDANT PROPERLY REJECTED THE MACHINES AS NONCONFORMING GOODS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT CURE THE NONCONFORMITY, AND DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOST PROFITS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found that defendant had rejected the machines as nonconforming goods, plaintiff did not cure the nonconformity, and defendant was properly awarded consequential damages and lost profits:

… [T]he Supreme Court found … the defendant[] demonstrated that the plaintiff had breached express and implied warranties by showing that the machines which were delivered to [defendant] Expansion did not conform to the descriptions set forth in the invoice. The court determined that Expansion was entitled to damages in the principal sum of $53,298.75 for breach of express and implied warranties, representing the amount of lease payments it made on the machines, as well as damages in the principal sum of $2,852,430 for lost profits resulting from that breach. …

… [T]he evidence established that Expansion rejected the machines with particularity as required by UCC 2-605. …

… [W]hile Expansion’s rejection triggered the plaintiff’s right pursuant to UCC 2-A-513 to cure the alleged nonconformity, the … determination that the plaintiff failed to do so was warranted by the facts. …

… [T]he determination that, at the time the parties entered into the contract, damages for lost profits were within the contemplation of the parties is warranted by the facts. It was foreseeable that a breach on the part of the plaintiff with respect to delivering functioning machines would result in Expansion being unable to manufacture sufficient ammunition to fill existing orders, or to accept new orders, culminating in lost profits … . Mil-Spec Indus. Corp. v Expansion Indus., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00035, Second Dept 1-5-22

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE ELECTRIC BICYCLE WAS SOLD BY A THIRD-PARTY THROUGH AMAZON AND WAS ASSEMBLED BY AN APPROVED AMAZON PROVIDER, THERE IS NO THEORY UNDER WHICH AMAZON CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR AN INJURY CAUSED BY IMPROPER ASSEMBLY OF THE BICYCLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Shulman, determined Amazon could not be held liable for an injury caused by an electric bicycle purchased through Amazon which apparently was not assembled properly. Eshion, a China-based company, listed the bicycle on Amazon. The purchaser, plaintiff’s father, elected to have the bicycle assembled. Codefendant Tri-State Assembly offers its assembly services on Amazon and was an Amazon approved service provider. Plaintiff alleged the bicycle was not assembled properly (by Tri-State) and plaintiff fell because the handlebars loosened while he was riding it:

The Uniform Commercial Code clearly provides that implied warranties only extend to sellers (see UCC 2-314 [1]; 2-315 … ). Plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim fails because Amazon submitted sufficient documentary evidence and unrefuted affidavits from its representatives to establish prima facie that it did not sell, manufacture, distribute or assemble the bicycle.

The supporting affidavits indicate that, pursuant to contract, third-party sellers such as Eshion are responsible for all aspects of their sales, such as setting a price, describing the product being sold, and offering any warranties. In this case, Eshion sold the bicycle and shipped it directly to plaintiff. At no time was the bicycle ever in Amazon’s possession or control, nor did it ever obtain title to the bicycle (see UCC 2-106 [1]). Further, when placing orders all Amazon.com users agree to its Conditions of Use, wherein Amazon disclaims all warranties for products sold by third-party sellers.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. Wallace v Tri-State Assembly, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06664, First Dept 11-30-21

 

, ,

THE CREDIT BID IN THIS UCC FORECLOSURE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW WHAT A COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE BID SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURSUANT TO UCC 9-615 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch which addresses several issues not summarized here, determined the bid in foreclosure proceedings pursuant to UCC 9-611 was too low:

Taking the position that the business cessation constituted a breach of the security agreement, [plaintiff] terminated the agreement and gave [defendants] notice of its intent to foreclose on the collateral — i.e., the outstanding medical receivables — by holding a public auction pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code (see UCC 9-611). [Plaintiff] was the only bidder at the public auction and purchased the collateral by way of a $50,000 credit bid, which it then credited against the outstanding balance of the loan. * * *

We find that the credit bid was “significantly below” what a commercially reasonable bid should have been under the standard set forth in UCC 9-615 (f) (2) … . It follows that Supreme Court erred in awarding plaintiff damages for breach of contract. Specifin Mgt. LLC v Elhadidy, 2021 NY Slip Op 06578, Third Dept 11-24-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTE WAS LOST (PURSUANT TO THE UCC) AND DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CORRECTION OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES IN THE MORTGAGE BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate the note was lost and did not present sufficient evidence to warrant correction of the legal description of the premises in the mortgage:

“Pursuant to UCC 3-804, which is intended to provide a method of recovery on instruments that are lost, destroyed, or stolen, a plaintiff is required to submit ‘due proof of [the plaintiff’s] ownership, the facts which prevent [its] production of [the note,] and its terms'” … . Here, the copy of the note annexed to the lost note affidavit provided sufficient evidence of the terms of the note … . However, the lost note affidavit failed to sufficiently establish Wells Fargo’s ownership of the note, as it “failed to establish when the note was acquired and failed to provide sufficient facts as to when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, or how or when the note was lost” … .Thus, the affidavit failed to sufficiently establish Wells Fargo’s ownership of the note at the time the action was commenced. …

… Supreme Court should have denied that branch of [plaintiff’s] ]motion which was for summary judgment … to reform the mortgage to correct the legal description of the premises. “A party seeking reformation of a contract by reason of mistake must establish, with clear and convincing evidence, that the contract was executed under mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake induced by the other party’s fraudulent misrepresentation” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Zolotnitsky, 2021 NY Slip Op 03482, Second Dept 6-2-21, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not present sufficient evidence of standing to bring the foreclosure action. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Generally, in order to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must produce the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the default … . Where the plaintiff’s standing has been placed in issue by the defendants’ answer, the plaintiff must prove its standing as part of its prima facie showing … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff failed, prima facie, ]to establish its standing to commence this action. The copy of the note submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion contained an additional page, entitled “Allonge to Note,” which contained a special indorsement from the original lender to the plaintiff. However, … the plaintiff did not submit any evidence to establish that the purported allonge was so firmly affixed to the note as to become a part thereof (see UCC 3-202[2] …). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Maleno-Fowler, 2021 NY Slip Op 03344, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

, ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should have been denied because the proof the bank has standing was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action. Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonge, which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the note, was “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Ainsley, 2021 NY Slip Op 02014, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

, , ,

EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE ACCEPTED DEFECTIVE GOODS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UCC, THE UCC PROVIDES REMEDIES, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO BE MADE WHOLE AND THE RIGHT TO REVOKE THE ACCEPTANCE; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Christopher, reversing Supreme Court, determined the verdict should not have been set aside in this consumer law case. Plaintiff ordered kitchen cabinets. When they arrived one box was opened by defendant-seller’s representative to confirm the color. Plaintiff then signed a “Completion Certificate” which indicated the cabinets had been found satisfactory. In fact the cabinets were not satisfactory as revealed when they were installed. The Second Department noted that, although under the UCC plaintiff, based on the “Completion Certificate,” could not reject the goods, the UCC provides that she could be made whole, and, in fact, could revoke her acceptance, in addition to other available remedies. Therefore plaintiff’s verdict awarding $30,000 should not have been set aside:

“Acceptance of goods by the buyer precludes rejection of the goods accepted” (UCC 2-607[2]; see Comment 2). However, “acceptance does not of itself impair any other remedy provided by [article 2 of the UCC] for non-conformity” (UCC 2-607[2] …). “Thus, ‘acceptance leaves unimpaired the buyer’s right to be made whole, and that right can be exercised by the buyer not only by way of cross-claim for damages, but also by way of recoupment in diminution or extinction of the [purchase] price'” … . …

Moreover, after the buyer has accepted allegedly non-conforming goods, the buyer may revoke acceptance of the goods under certain limited circumstances and “obtain the same remedies as are available upon rejection” … . …

… [E]ven if the jury found that the plaintiff did not properly revoke her acceptance of the cabinets, the jury could have found that the plaintiff was entitled to other remedies pursuant to UCC 2-607 … .

… [T]he jury’s verdict that … the defendant breached their contract with the plaintiff, breached the implied warranty of fitness, and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages in the amount of $30,000 was supported by a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from the evidence at trial … . Campbell v Bradco Supply Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 01745, Second Dept 3-24-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate standing with admissible evidence and the lost note affidavit was insufficient:

… [T]he only business record entered into evidence to support DeCaro’s [plaintiff’s loan verification consultant’s] testimony that the plaintiff was in possession of the note on the date of commencement was plaintiff’s Exhibit 7, a computer screen printout of a database tracking system. However, plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 failed to evince the facts for which it was relied upon. More specifically, while DeCaro contended that the document demonstrated that Wells Fargo, as custodian for the plaintiff, received the note July 16, 2005, and that the note was in Wells Fargo’s vault from July 2005 until December 2009, the document, in itself, failed to establish those facts.

Further, pursuant to UCC 3-804, which is intended to provide a method for recovering on instruments that are lost, destroyed, or stolen, a plaintiff is required to submit due proof of the plaintiff’s ownership of the note, the facts which prevent the plaintiff from producing the note, and the note’s terms … . Here, the lost note affidavit, which failed to establish when the note was acquired and failed to provide sufficient facts as to when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, or how or when the note was lost, failed to sufficiently establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the note … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Gilbert, 2020 NY Slip Op 07874, Second Dept 12-23-20

 

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