You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

,

ONCE PLAINTIFF ACCELERATED THE DEBT BY COMMENCING FORECLOSURE DEFENDANTS COULD EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO REDEEM THE MORTGAGE WITHOUT TRIGGERING A CONTRACTUAL PREPAYMENT PENALTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled defendants could exercise their right of redemption in this foreclosure action without triggering the plaintiff’s contractual right to withhold consent to prepayment:

… [D]efendants were not seeking to prepay the amount due under the note, rather plaintiff accelerated the remaining amount due by instituting a foreclosure action and sending the demand letter.

We … reject plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to the remaining amount due on the note, including all unaccrued interest payments. It is well settled that, once a foreclosure proceeding is commenced, “[a] mortgagor or other owner of the equity of redemption of a property subject to a judgment of foreclosure and sale may redeem the mortgage at any time prior to the foreclosure sale” … . “An unconditional tender of the full amount due is all that is required” to exercise the right of redemption … . Thus, defendants’ tender of payment of the entire mortgage principal and the accrued interest was all that was required “in response to [plaintiff’s] acceleration of the debt upon default [and, as noted,] did not constitute a ‘prepayment’ of the debt within the meaning of the prepayment clause set forth in the mortgage” … . Inasmuch as “the accelerated payment here is the result of plaintiff[-]mortgagee[] having elected to bring this foreclosure action, [he] may not exact a prepayment penalty” … . Virkler v V.S. Virkler & Son, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04434, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALL FROM HER BED IN A NURSING HOME WAS CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether defendants’ negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s fall from her bed in defendants’ nursing home:

Plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit from a physician with extensive experience in the treatment of geriatric patients and who is familiar with the standards of care applicable for skilled nursing facilities, including those in New York as they existed during the relevant time period … .. The expert opined that, based on decedent’s history of over 30 falls while at defendants’ facility, decedent was a “high fall risk.” Plaintiff’s expert set forth the interventions that defendants failed to implement to reduce decedent’s known and documented risk of falling. Moreover, he opined that, in this case, defendants failed to meet the relevant standard of care because they failed to use bed restraints, which were appropriate and would have prevented decedent’s fall, and failed to use side rails, alarms and motion detectors, which also would have prevented decedent’s fall. Thus, his affidavit raises a question of fact whether defendants were negligent by failing to implement available precautions to protect decedent from a foreseeable risk of falling … . Rosado v Rosa Coplon Jewish Home, 2021 NY Slip Op 04432, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS BROUGHT TO THE HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW AFTER THREATENING FAMILY MEMBERS AND KILLING A DOG; DEFENDANTS RELEASED PLAINTIFF THE SAME DAY AND PLAINTIFF KILLED THE FAMILY MEMBERS; PLAINTIFF ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL ILLNESS; THE RULE PROHIBITING A PLAINTIFF FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN WRONG DID NOT APPLY AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s medical (psychiatric) malpractice action properly survived a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was treated by defendants after he was brought to the hospital by the police pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 9.41. Plaintiff had threatened family members and killed a dog. Plaintiff was released the same day and shortly thereafter killed the three family members he had threatened. Ultimately plaintiff entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental illness or defect. The courts refused to apply the rule prohibiting a plaintiff from taking advantage of his own wrong because plaintiff was not responsible for his conduct:

With respect to the ground for dismissal asserted here, “as a matter of public policy, . . . where a plaintiff has engaged in unlawful conduct, the courts will not entertain suit if the plaintiff’s conduct constitutes a serious violation of the law and the injuries for which the plaintiff seeks recovery are the direct result of that violation” … . The rule derives from the maxim that “[n]o one shall be permitted to profit by his [or her] own fraud, or to take advantage of his [or her] own wrong, or to found any claim upon his [or her] own iniquity, or to acquire property by his [or her] own crime” … . In cases in which the doctrine applies, “recovery is precluded ‘at the very threshold of the plaintiff’s application for judicial relief’ ” … . Notably, the Court of Appeals has applied the doctrine with caution to avoid overextending it inasmuch as the rule “embodies a narrow application of public policy imperatives under limited circumstances” … . * * *

… [A]ccepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, we conclude that the criminal court’s acceptance of plaintiff’s plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect demonstrates that, at the time of his conduct constituting a serious violation of the law, plaintiff lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either the nature and consequences of his conduct or that such conduct was wrong … . Thus, unlike cases applying the rule to preclude recovery, the record here establishes that plaintiff’s illegal conduct was not knowing, willful, intentional, or otherwise sufficiently culpable to warrant application of the rule … . Bumbolo v Faxton St. Luke’s Healthcare, 2021 NY Slip Op 04429, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S CHILD ALLEGEDLY WAS INJURED DURING SCHOOL RECESS; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE CHILD FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 50-H HEARING REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to produce the child (who allegedly was injured at school recess) for the General Municipal Law 50-h hearing required dismissal of the complaint:

“As General Municipal Law § 50-h (5) makes clear on its face, compliance with a municipality’s demand for a section 50-h examination is a condition precedent to commencing an action against that municipality” … . “A claimant’s failure to comply with such a demand generally warrants dismissal of the action”… . “Requiring claimants to comply with section 50-h before commencing an action augments the statute’s purpose, which ‘is to afford the [municipality] an opportunity to early investigate the circumstances surrounding the accident and to explore the merits of the claim, while information is readily available, with a view towards settlement’ ” … . ” ‘The failure to submit to . . . an examination [pursuant to section 50-h], however, may be excused in exceptional circumstances, such as extreme physical or psychological incapacity’ ” … .

Here, “[b]y refusing to produce for an examination under General Municipal Law § 50-h the minor child on whose behalf they are suing, plaintiffs failed to comply with a condition precedent to commencing the action . . . Nor did they demonstrate exceptional circumstances so as to excuse their noncompliance”  … . Jeffrey T.C. v Grand Is. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04427, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

, ,

DISCOVERY REQUESTS AIMED AT AN ISSUE WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT FOR THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A MEMO IN THE RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE ISSUE WAS PRESERVED, THE ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ discovery requests in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. The requests for defendants’ cell phone records and receipts for food and beverages on the day of the accident were aimed at demonstrating the identity of the driver of defendants’ vehicle. But the identity of the driver had been admitted by the defendants. Plaintiff’s alternative argument was rejected because there was no memorandum of law in the record to demonstrate the issue had been raised below:

Given the prior admission establishing that [defendant] Vladyslav was the operator of the pickup truck, plaintiff “failed to meet the threshold for disclosure by showing that [his] request for [defendants’] cell phone [records and records for food and beverage purchases] was reasonably calculated to yield information material and necessary to [his action]” … . …

Plaintiff … contends, as an alternative ground for affirmance, that there is a different reason supporting disclosure that was not included in his discovery requests or motion papers in the record on appeal, i.e., the requested records are potentially relevant to identifying witnesses who could testify about Vladyslav’s physical condition on the night of the accident and to determining whether Vladyslav was intoxicated or impaired. On the record before us, which does not include any memoranda of law despite our repeated and longstanding advisements that such memoranda may properly be included in the record on appeal for the limited purpose of determining preservation … , we conclude that plaintiff’s contention is not properly before us inasmuch as it is raised for the first time on appeal … . Brennan v Demydyuk, 2021 NY Slip Op 04425, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE ARGUMENT THAT THE INDICTMENT WAS DUPLICITOUS WAS PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE ISSUE WAS NOT RULED ON BY COUNTY COURT AND THEREFORE CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that it can not consider an issue which was preserved for appeal but was not ruled upon by County Court. The matter was remitted:

Although defendant did preserve his contention concerning facial duplicity by seeking dismissal of the indictment on that ground in the pretrial omnibus motion … , we are unable to address that contention because County Court failed to rule on that part of defendant’s omnibus motion (see CPL 470.15 [1] …).

The Court of Appeals “has construed CPL 470.15 (1) as a legislative restriction on the Appellate Division’s power to review issues either decided in an appellant’s favor, or not ruled upon, by the trial court” … , “and thus the court’s failure to rule on the motion cannot be deemed a denial thereof” … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court for a ruling on that part of defendant’s omnibus motion. People v Baek, 2021 NY Slip Op 04424, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

,

DEFENDANT OWNS A VINEYARD IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN AN ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 BECAUSE THE VINEYARD WAS “SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s property (a vineyard) was suitable for recreational use and therefore defendant was entitled to immunity pursuant to General Obligations Law 9-103. Defendant was not liable for plaintiff’s injuries from an all-terrain-vehicle (ATV) accident which occurred when the driver missed a bridge over a culvert:

… “[D]efendant, as the party seeking summary judgment, ha[d] the burden of establishing as a matter of law that he is immune from liability pursuant to the statute” … . We conclude that defendant met his initial burden on the motion of establishing that the site where the accident occurred was suitable for recreational use … . The evidence defendant submitted on the motion showed that the vineyard’s dirt and grass-covered roads, as well as the bridge where the accident occurred, were physically conducive to ATV riding. Additionally, defendant established that the vineyard’s roads and the bridge were appropriate for public use for recreational ATV riding based on the uncontradicted testimony of defendant Aaron P. Gibbons, an adjoining property owner, that, over a significant period of time, he and his wife had frequently driven ATVs on the vineyard’s roads and the bridge and had often observed others doing the same. Wheeler v Gibbons, 2021 NY Slip Op 04323, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DOMINICA, THE EXECUTRIX OF JOSEPHINE’S ESTATE, WAS NEVER SUBSTITUTED FOR JOSEPHINE AFTER JOSEPHINE’S DEATH, DOMINICA APPEARED AND ACTIVELY LITIGATED A MOTION TO VACATE; THE FAILURE TO EFFECT SUBSTITUTION IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS A MERE IRREGULARITY; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the failure to substitute the executrix of Josephine’s estate, Dominica P., after Josephine’s death did not nullify the proceedings. Dominca P appeared and actively litigated a motion to vacate brought by Kathleen. In that circumstance the failure to effect substitution was deemed a mere irregularity:

Josephine died at some point before the entry of the order on appeal, and the executrix of her estate, Dominica P., was never formally substituted as the petitioner in this proceeding. There is no dispute, however, that Dominica was properly served with Kathleen’s motion to vacate, and Dominica never objected to adjudicating Kathleen’s motion in the absence of a formal substitution order. To the contrary, Dominica—acting in her capacity as the executrix of Josephine’s estate—appeared and successfully opposed Kathleen’s motion on the merits. Dominica likewise appeared in this Court to oppose Kathleen’s appeal. Because Dominica appeared and actively litigated Kathleen’s motion on the merits, it is well established that any “defect in failing to first effect substitution was a mere irregularity” … . Moreover, to formally correct this irregularity, we now modify the order by substituting Dominica as the petitioner in this proceeding … . Matter of Robinson v Kathleen B., 2021 NY Slip Op 04320, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE CSSA APPLIES EVEN WHEN THE CHILD RECEIVES PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; DOWNWARD DEVIATION FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE SUPPORT LEVEL IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE PROPORTIONAL OFFSET METHOD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined petitioner’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order should not have been denied:

It is well settled that “the CSSA [Child Support Standards Act] must be applied to all child support orders, regardless of a child’s receipt of public assistance” … . Here, the Support Magistrate purported to reduce the father’s obligation pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f) (10) because the father made additional expenditures to maintain his house to permit the child to stay there during the time that he stayed with the father. Such a reduction for extended visitation is permitted by section 413 (1) (f) (9), however, and that subdivision of the statute applies only where “the child is not on public assistance” … . Furthermore, we have previously stated that a determination to grant a downward deviation from the presumptive support obligation on the ground that the noncustodial parent incurred expenses while the child was in his or her care ” ‘was merely another way of [improperly] applying the proportional offset method’ ” … , and the proportional offset method of calculating child support has been explicitly rejected by the Court of Appeals … . Matter of Livingston County Dept. of Social Servs. v Hyde, 2021 NY Slip Op 04316, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

, ,

THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE NOTE WAS NOT RECOVERABLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ACCELERATION CLAUSE; CLAIMS FOR UNPAID INSTALLMENTS DUE MORE THAN SIX YEARS BEFORE FILING SUIT WERE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the full amount of the note could not be recovered because it did not include an acceleration clause. In addition, claims for unpaid installments due more than six years before the filing of the lawsuit were time-barred:

“As a general rule, in the absence of an acceleration clause providing for the entire amount of a note to be due upon the default of any one installment, [a plaintiff is] only entitled to recover past due installments and [can]not unilaterally declare the note[] accelerated” … . “Rather, each default on each installment gives rise to a separate cause of action” … . Here, the record is devoid of any evidence of an acceleration clause and, thus, plaintiff was entitled to recover “only the amount of the installments past due at the time of trial” … . … “Where, as here, ‘a loan secured by a mortgage is payable in installments, separate causes of action accrue for each unpaid installment, and the statute of limitations begins to run on the date that each installment becomes due’ ” … . As defendant correctly asserted as a defense, inasmuch as plaintiff commenced this action on July 13, 2017, any claims for missed installments that accrued prior to July 13, 2011 were time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations … . Estate of Kathryn Essig v Essig, 2021 NY Slip Op 04301, Fourth Dept 7-9-21

 

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