You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure proceeding did not demonstrate defendant’s default because the relevant business documents were not submitted:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer who averred … that based upon his review of certain business records maintained by the loan servicer and the plaintiff, he was familiar with the underlying mortgage loan and payment history of Hernandez [defendant]. However, the affiant, and the plaintiff, failed to submit any business records substantiating the alleged default … . “‘Conclusory affidavits lacking a factual basis are without evidentiary value'” … . “Even assuming that the subject affidavit established a sufficient foundation for the records relied upon, ‘it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted'” … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Hernandez, 2023 NY Slip Op 01888, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: An affidavit describing business records is hearsay if the records themselves are not attached.

 

, , ,

THE LESSOR OF THE CAR INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE; THEREFORE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE GRAVES AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Chase, the defendant – lessor of the car involved in a traffic accident, did not present sufficient evidence of its status as the lessor for purposes of asserting the Graves-Amendment defense. The business records which would have established the lessor-lessee relationship were either illegible or were not submitted:

When evidentiary material is considered on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the motion should not be granted unless the evidentiary material “conclusively [establishes] that the plaintiff has no cause of action” … .

Pursuant to the Graves Amendment, the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of the vehicle if (1) the owner is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner … .

… Chase attempted to establish the fact that it leased the subject vehicle to [defendant] through the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]). … [E]ven assuming that the … affidavit had established a proper foundation, “it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … .. Since Chase failed to submit the purported assignment of the lease agreement, it failed to conclusively establish that … it was shielded by the Graves Amendment. Tello v Upadhyaya, 2023 NY Slip Op 01913, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: Here the lessor of the car involved in the accident attempted to raise the Graves-Amendment defense but did not submit the business records showing the assignment of the lease. Therefore the affidavit laying a foundation for those records was hearsay and the motion to dismiss should not have been granted.

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT “APPEARED INFORMALLY” THROUGH THE CEO’S AFFIDAVIT; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the defendant corporation was not served with the summons and complaint, it “appeared informally” in the action and, therefore, plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment should have been granted. The “informal appearance” was in the form of the corporate CEO’s affidavit:

… “‘[I]n addition to the formal appearances listed in CPLR 320(a), the law continues to recognize the so-called “informal” appearance'” .. . An informal appearance “‘comes about when the defendant, although not having taken any of the steps that would officially constitute an appearance under CPLR 320(a), nevertheless participates in the case in some way relating to the merits'” … . “When a defendant participates in a lawsuit on the merits, he or she indicates an intention to submit to the court’s jurisdiction over the action, and by appearing informally in this manner, the defendant confers in personam jurisdiction on the court” … . “[A]n appearance of the defendant is equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him [or her], unless an objection to jurisdiction under [CPLR 3211(a)(8)] is asserted by motion or in the answer as provided in rule 3211” (CPLR 320[b]).

“The occasion for [an informal] appearance [is] an infrequent thing” … . However, an informal appearance may occur even where the defendant is not served with process , where an individual defendant affirmatively states that he or she is only acting in his or her capacity as an officer of a corporate defendant … . Travelon, Inc. v Maekitan, 2023 NY Slip Op 01816, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Although infrequent, New York still recognizes an “informal appearance” in an action, here through an affidavit submitted by the CEO of a corporate defendant. Because of the informal appearance, plaintiffs were entitled to a default judgment, even though the defendant was never served with a summons and complaint.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS OBTAINED A NEW JERSEY DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THREE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE; PLANTIFFS NEED ONLY SERVE ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS TO ENFORCE THE FOREIGN JUDGMENT AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs, who obtained a New Jersey default judgment against three defendants, need only serve one of the defendants in this action to enforce the foreign judgment:

In October 2013, the plaintiffs contracted with the defendant Tirepool, LLC … for the purchase of a used car. The contract was negotiated by the defendants Jeff Massicott and Vivian Wallace, the owners/managers of Tirepool. The defendants breached the contract and retained the plaintiffs’ down payment. … [T]he plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey (hereinafter the New Jersey action). The defendants failed to answer the complaint, and the plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendants in the principal sum of $26,548.32. …

CPLR 1501 provides: “Where less than all of the named defendants in an action based upon a joint obligation, contract or liability are served with the summons, the plaintiff may proceed against the defendants served, unless the court otherwise directs, and if the judgment is for the plaintiff it may be taken against all the defendants.” Here, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the judgment in the New Jersey action and, therefore, the plaintiffs are permitted to proceed against Wallace without effectuating service on the other defendants.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment in lieu of complaint insofar as asserted against Wallace. Obed v Tirepool, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01802, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here there was a foreign default judgment against three defendants who are jointly and severally liable. Plaintiffs only served one of the defendants with a summons in lieu of complaint to enforce the foreign judgment. Plaintiffs did not need to serve the other two defendants and could proceed against the defendant who was served.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE ENGINEER SENT A LETTER TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRING REPAIR OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VILLAGE HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of the sidewalk defect where plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell. The village code requires that the board of trustees be given written notice of the defect in order to hold the village liable. Here there was a letter from the town engineer to the abutting homeowners notifying them of the sidewalk defect and requiring repair within 30 days. The majority held that letter did not meet the written notice requirements in the code, which must be strictly construed. the dissent disagreed:

Where … a municipality has enacted a prior written notice law, neither actual nor constructive notice of a condition satisfies the prior written notice requirement … . Records generated by other agencies of the Village, outside of the strict construction of Code of the Village of Garden City § 132-2, fail to satisfy the requirements of the relevant prior written notice law … .. On this record, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any documents to or from other municipal employees found their way to the Village Board of Trustees so as to cognizably qualify as prior written notice under the terms of the Village Code.

Our learned dissenting colleague concludes that the plaintiffs, through the submission of a letter on the Village’s letterhead dated May 11, 2015, from the Village Engineer to the defendant homeowners, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the Village Board of Trustees had prior written notice of the alleged sidewalk defects. … The letter … states … that a recent inspection of the sidewalk and/or driveway apron adjacent to the defendant homeowners’ property indicated that concrete was in need of repair or replacement. The letter continues, stating that it was necessary to repair or replace a defective sidewalk and/or driveway apron for safety reasons and to reduce the likelihood of lawsuits against the property owners and the Village. For these reasons … the Village Board of Trustees had adopted a resolution … providing that property owners are required to repair or replace defective or damaged sidewalks and/or driveway aprons fronting their property within 30 days of receiving notice of such defects. Strictly construing the terms of the Village’s prior written notice law, as we must … that letter from the Village Engineer to the defendant homeowners does not constitute the giving of prior written notice to the Village Board of Trustees. … . Kolenda v Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 2023 NY Slip Op 01783, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here the village code required that written notice of a sidewalk defect be provided to the board of trustees. A letter from the village engineer to the abutting homeowners requiring repair of the defect did not meet the code’s written-notice requirements, which must be strictly construed. Therefore the village cannot be held liable for the slip and fall.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED; IN MOVING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DELAY IN SEEKING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate an adequate excuse (law office failure) for not attending the settlement conference and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff’s allegation of law office failure was conclusory and unsubstantiated. In an affirmation in support of the motion … to vacate the order of dismissal, the plaintiff’s counsel described her office’s standard practices and procedures for receiving and processing notices and orders, and posited that her office had not received notice of the scheduled conference because there were “no notes, scanned images, or calendar steps” in the files that she reviewed. The plaintiff … failed to provide an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge of the purported law office failure, provide any details regarding such failure, or provide any other evidence of the system’s purported breakdown that led to counsel’s nonappearance at the conference … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the order of dismissal … . Since the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse its default, it is unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1] …). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hutchinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01782, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Here the claim that plaintiff missed the settlement conference due to law office failure was not supported by proof from a person with first hand knowledge. The motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE WET SUBSTANCE ON THE STEP WHERE SHE ALLEGEDLY FELL WAS NOT AN INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall complaint should not have been dismissed because plaintiff did not know what the wet substance on the step was:

… [T]he defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what caused her to fall. In support of its motion, the defendant submitted the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that she slipped and fell on a wet step … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s alleged inability to identify the “precise nature of the wet substance upon which she allegedly slipped and fell cannot be equated with a failure to identify the cause of her fall” … . Diaz v SCG 502, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01779, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a wet step. Her inability to identify the wet substance was not an inability to identify the cause of her fall.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant restaurant (ABB) did not demonstrated when the area where plaintiff slipped and fell had been last inspected prior to the fall. Therefore ABB did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the wet condition:

ABB … failed to demonstrate … that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Although ABB’s witness testified that the accident occurred five minutes after the witness had entered the restaurant and observed the floor to be dry, the plaintiff testified that the accident occurred at least one hour later, and ABB did not submit any evidence as to when it last inspected the area prior to the time when the plaintiff asserted the accident occurred … . Carey v Walt Whitman Mall, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01773, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: To be entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case, the defendants must show where the area of the fall was last inspected prior to the fall to demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

 

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES RUNS THROUGH A DRIVEWAY, 10 FEET ON DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY AND SEVEN FEET ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE DRIVEWAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment declaring plaintiffs did not have a prescriptive easement over a driveway located on both parties’ properties (10 feet on defendants’ side and seven feet on plaintiffs’ side) should have been granted. Supreme Court should have considered the state of the property when the two lots were created from a single parcel in the 1920’s, not the driving habits of plaintiffs and defendants since they purchased the properties in the 1990’s:

“The party asserting an easement by necessity bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that there was a unity and subsequent separation of title, . . . and that at the time of severance an easement over [the servient estate’s] property was absolutely necessary. Significantly, the necessity must exist in fact and not as a mere convenience and must be indispensable to the reasonable use for the adjacent property” … . The court determined that the defendants did not meet their prima facie burden because, in the court’s view, the record reflects that the plaintiffs could not drive their vehicles into and out of their garage without traversing the defendants’ property. … [T]he court erroneously focused on the claimed necessity as it is alleged to exist now. … [T]he relevant inquiry is whether the necessity existed at the time of severance … . … [T]he parties’ respective properties were created from one parcel of land in 1925 and 1926. Hence, the plaintiffs’ testimony as to their driving habits from when they first acquired the property in 1991 is irrelevant. In any event, in contrast to situations where severance of title renders a claimant’s property landlocked, courts have repeatedly rejected claims to an easement by necessity over a driveway where the “sole claimed ‘necessity’ for the easement is the ‘need’ to access off-street parking,” as “[t]hat purported need is nothing more than a mere convenience” … . Bolognese v Bantis, 2023 NY Slip Op 01771, Second Dept 4-5-23

Practice Point: Plaintiffs’ and defendants’ properties were created from a single parcel in the 1920’s. To determine whether a party has a prescriptive easement, one parcel has to be landlocked at the time of severance. Here the parties’ shared a driveway leading to their garages, part of the driveway was on plaintiffs’ property and part on defendants’ property. Plaintiffs regularly drove over a portion of defendants’ driveway to access their garage. Supreme Court should have considered only the state of the property in the 1920’s when the single parcel was divided into two. The parties’ driving habits were irrelevant. Therefore defendants were entitled to a declaration that plaintiffs did not have a prescriptive easement over the driveway.

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS REPLY TO A COUNTERCLAIM TO ADD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS NOT PALPABLY IMPROPER AND DEFENDANT SHOWED THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE BY NOT OPPOSING THE MOTION TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend a reply to a counterclaim to add the statute-of-limitations affirmative defense should have been granted, noting that mere lateness is not an adequate ground for denial of a motion to amend. The court also noted that defendant’s failure to oppose the motion demonstrated a lack of prejudice:

“In the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, applications to amend or supplement a pleading ‘are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” (… see CPLR 3025[b]). “The burden of demonstrating prejudice or surprise, or that a proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, falls upon the party opposing the motion” … . “The determination to permit or deny amendment is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” … .

Here, the record reflects that the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit. Moreover, while the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) was made more than eight months after its original verified reply, “‘[m]ere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'” … . In this case, having failed to oppose the motion, [defendant] failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating any prejudice or surprise. Toiny, LLC v Rahim, 2023 NY Slip Op 01702, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: Motions to amend pleadings should rarely be denied. Mere lateness in moving to amend is not an adequate reason for denial.

 

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