You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

​ IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY NOT CONSIDERED) AND THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT NOTIFIED A TENANT OF THE FORECLOSURE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1303 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank (Merrill Lynch) in this foreclosure action failed to prove defendant’s default and failed to notify a tenant on the property of the foreclosure. The bank’s attempt to prove the default in reply papers was rejected:

Merrill Lynch failed to submit admissible evidence establishing the defendant’s default. In support of its motion, Merrill Lynch submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of Theresia Ang, the vice president of its loan servicer and attorney-in-fact. However, Ang failed to attach the business records on which she relied, and thus, her averment to the defendant’s default was hearsay lacking in probative value … . Although Merrill Lynch attempted to submit evidence of the defendant’s default in reply, a moving party “cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply” … .

… RPAPL 1303 requires, inter alia, the party foreclosing a mortgage on residential property to provide the notice prescribed by the statute to any tenant of the property by certified mail, if the identity of the tenant is known to the foreclosing party (see id. § 1303[1][b]; [4]). Proper service of an RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action, and the “‘foreclosing party has the burden of showing compliance therewith'” … .

Here, Merrill Lynch failed to submit any evidence that it served any tenant of the subject property with the notices required by RPAPL 1303 by certified mail, or that it was not aware of any tenant’s identity. In contrast, the defendant’s affidavit and the affidavit of Richard Nicholson, submitted in opposition to Merrill Lynch’s motion, established that Richard Nicholson resided at the subject property, that he paid rent, and that the mortgage loan servicer was aware that he resided at the subject property. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp. v Nicholson, 2022 NY Slip Op 06239, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action failed to submit sufficient evidence of defendant’s default and was not allowed to cure the defect in reply papers.

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate it notified a tenant of the foreclosure as required by RPAPL 1303.

 

,

REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WITH NO EXCUSE WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ failure to comply with discovery orders justified striking the answer:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer. The defendants’ willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from their repeated failures, over an extended period of time, to comply with the plaintiffs’ discovery demands and the court’s discovery orders without an adequate excuse … . L.K. v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06236, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: Here the defendants offered no excuse for their failure to comply with discovery orders and the appellate court struck their answer.

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE, A SEPARATE PAPER, WAS FIRMLY ATTACHED TO THE NOTE, AS REQUIRED BY THE UCC; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD 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 action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence the action based on its annexation of the note to the summons and complaint, since 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) … . Hudson City Sav. Bank v Ellia, 2022 NY Slip Op 06235, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: When a defendant contests the bank’s standing to bring a foreclosure action, the bank must prove the allonge (a separate paper) was “firmly attached” to the note as required by UCC 3-202(2).

 

,

THE BANK INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT, A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATE ENVELOPE RULE (RPAPL 1304) (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank included other notice with the notice of default, a violation of RPAPL 1304 (the separate envelope rule):

“[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a residential foreclosure action” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not comply with RPAPL 1304, since additional notices were sent in the same envelope as the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304, and a single notice was jointly addressed to both of the defendants … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Schneps, 2022 NY Slip Op 06234, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: The separate envelope rule (RPAPL 1304) which requires that nothing else be included with the notice of default is a condition precedent to a foreclosure action.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND CAN BE CURED SUA SPONTE, HERE THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT PROPERLY SEEK LEAVE TO EXCUSE THE FAILURE AND THE JUDGE DID NOT GRANT PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE A LATE PROOF OF SERVICE; THE SERVICE WHICH WAS ALLOWED TO STAND BY THE JUDGE WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not granted plaintiffs leave to file late proof of service on defendant Joffe. Plaintiffs offered no excuse for the failure:

Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for a declaration that Joffe was properly served with process pursuant to CPLR 308(2) and 313. The court did not acknowledge or address Joffe’s argument that the plaintiffs’ proof of service had not been filed with the court within the requisite time. The court recognized, but did not reach the merits of, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was, in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve Joffe by 120 additional days. The court, in effect, denied the alternative branch of the plaintiffs’ motion on the ground that it was academic.

… CPLR 308(2) provides that “proof of such service shall be filed with the clerk of the court designated in the summons within twenty days of either such delivery or mailing, whichever is effected later.”

… [T]he failure to file timely proof of service does not constitute a jurisdictional defect … . Rather, “[t]he failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity . . . that may be cured by motion or sua sponte by the court in its discretion pursuant to CPLR 2004” … .

Here, since the plaintiffs did not properly seek leave to excuse their failure to timely file proof of service, and the Supreme Court did not grant them leave to file proof of service beyond the statutory window (see CPLR 308[2]), the proof of service relating to Joffe was a nullity … . Under the circumstances, the court should have denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for a declaration that Joffe was properly served with process pursuant to CPLR 308(2) and 313. Chunyin Li v Joffe, 2022 NY Slip Op 06227, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: The failure to file proof of service is not a jurisdictional defect and can be cured by the judge sua sponte. Here however the plaintiffs did not properly seek leave to excuse their failure to timely file proof of service and the judge did not grant plaintiffs leave to file late proof of service, rendering the service on the defendant (allowed to stand by the judge) a nullity.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS BUT DID NOT WARRANT SUPREME COURT’S STRIKING THE COMPLAINT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION IMPOSED EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AND ORDERED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO PAY DEFENDANT $3000 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, agreed plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery orders was willful and contumacious, but determined striking the complaint was too severe a sanction. The appellate division’s sanctions included ordering plaintiff’s counsel to pay defendant $3000:

… [T]he record demonstrates that the plaintiff violated court orders directing her to appear for a continued deposition by a certain date, to provide a full set of copies of photographs that she referenced during her first deposition or provide an affidavit as to the nonexistence of those photographs, and to execute authorizations for certain medical providers, a pattern that supports an inference of willful and contumacious behavior … . Furthermore, the plaintiff’s procedural objection to the defendant’s motion was without merit. However, under the circumstances, we find that the striking of the complaint was too drastic a remedy … . Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint should have been granted only to the extent of (1) precluding the plaintiff from using at trial any photograph that was not produced in response to the defendant’s discovery demands, (2) directing the plaintiff to provide the defendant with medical authorizations for Jamaica Hospital, and (3) directing the plaintiff’s counsel to personally pay the sum of $3,000 as a sanction to the defendant … . Castillo v Charles, 2022 NY Slip Op 06103, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Here the appellate division found plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery orders willful and contumacious but did not agree with Supreme Court’s striking of the complaint. The appellate court imposed evidentiary sanctions and ordered plaintiff’s counsel to pay defendant $3000.

 

, ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY ABUTTING THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CONDITION WAS CREATED BY THE LESSEE AND NO EVIDENCE OF AN AGREEMENT CREATING A DUTY ON THE PART OF THE LESSEE TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined 7-Eleven. the lessee of the property abutting the sidewalk where plaintiff allegedly fell, could not be held liable for the allegedly dangerous condition of the sidewalk:

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210(a) imposes a duty upon “the owner of real property abutting any sidewalk . . . to maintain such sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition.” “[A] lessee of property which abuts a public sidewalk owes no duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition, and liability may not be imposed upon it for injuries sustained as a result of a dangerous condition in the sidewalk, except where the abutting lessee either created the condition, voluntarily but negligently made repairs, caused the condition to occur because of some special use, or violated a statute or ordinance placing upon the lessee the obligation to maintain the sidewalk which imposes liability upon the lessee for injuries caused by a violation of that duty” … . Additionally, “[a]s a general rule, the provisions of a lease obligating a tenant to repair the sidewalk do not impose on the tenant a duty to a third party” … . Only “where a lease agreement is so comprehensive and exclusive as to sidewalk maintenance as to entirely displace the landowner’s duty to maintain the sidewalk, [may] the tenant . . . be liable to a third party” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that 7-Eleven had any duty to maintain the sidewalk abutting the property it leased. Brady v 2247 Utica Ave. Realty Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 06100, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Under the NYC Administrative Code, the lessee of property abutting a sidewalk is not liable for a slip and fall caused by the condition of the sidewalk if the lessee did not create the condition and did not agree to maintain the sidewalk.

 

, ,

DRIVER PURCHASED A GOODYEAR TIRE FOR HIS FORD FROM US TIRES, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; THE TIRE ALLEGEDLY FAILED LEADING TO A SERIOUS ACCIDENT IN VIRGINIA; DRIVER SUED US TIRES; US TIRES SUED GOODYEAR AND FORD, BOTH OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS, SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION; NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER GOODYEAR AND FORD IN THE US TIRES SUIT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Genovesi, determined New York has long-arm jurisdiction over third-party defendants Ford and Goodyear in this suit by a New York corporation, US Tires. US Tires installed a Goodyear tire on a Ford. The tire allegedly failed in Virginia and three passengers died. The plaintiffs, including the driver, sued US Tires. US Tires sued Ford and Goodyear, both out-of-state corporation, seeking indemnification. The issue on appeal was whether Ford and Goodyear had sufficient contacts with New York to support long-arm jurisdiction:

Ford and Goodyear concede that they conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in New York, thus satisfying the first prong of CPLR 302(a)(1). As to the second prong of CPLR 302(a)(1), US Tires demonstrated that Goodyear’s and Ford’s activities in New York have a sufficient connection with the claims herein. * * *

When all the requirements of CPLR 302 are met, the exercise of personal jurisdiction still must comport with constitutional due process requirements … . * * *

Based on the record before us, the exercise of specific jurisdiction over Ford and Goodyear comports with due process … . … Ford and Goodyear concede that they had sufficient “minimum contacts” with New York. … [T]he only remaining question is whether Ford and Goodyear have met their burden of presenting “a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable” … . We conclude that Ford and Goodyear have failed to meet this burden. Aybar v US Tires & Wheels of Queens, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06099, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: This decision includes a comprehensive discussion of general and specific jurisdiction which is worth consulting. In this suit by a New York corporation, US Tires, seeking indemnification from two out-of-state corporations, Ford and Goodyear, the court determined Ford and Goodyear had sufficient contacts with New York to support long-arm jurisdiction. US Tires installed a Goodyear tire on driver’s Ford. The tire allegedly failed in Virginia, causing a serious accident. The driver sued US Tires. US Tires sued Ford and Goodyear.

 

,

THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT FOOTBALL PLAYER DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK OF INJURY IN A FOOTBALL-RELATED WEIGHT-LIFTING SESSION; THE RISK OF A WEIGHT-LIFTING INJURY IS NOT INHERENT IN THE GAME OF FOOTBALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-student, a high school sophomore varsity football player, did not assume the risk of injury during a weight-lifting training-session when he voluntarily agreed to play football. The decision includes a good explanation of the assumption-of-the-risk doctrine:

Under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a person who voluntarily participates in a sport or recreational activity is deemed to consent to the risks inherent in that sport, thereby negating any duty on a defendant’s part to safeguard the plaintiff from those risks … . While the absolute defense of implied assumption of risk, which was abolished by the enactment of CPLR 1411 in 1975, barred recovery by a plaintiff who was aware of the risks of engaging in a specific act and engaged in that specific act nonetheless …, the separate and distinct doctrine of primary assumption of risk posits that the risk is assumed by virtue of the plaintiff’s voluntary participation in a sporting event, which indicates the plaintiff’s consent to the risks that are inherent in that sport. Although a plaintiff’s knowledge of the risk involved in the particular act that results in injury remains relevant, under CPLR 1411, in assessing his or her comparative fault, in the context of primary assumption of risk, “knowledge plays a role but inherency is the sine qua non” … . * * *

Unlike a plaintiff subject to the pre-1975 defense of implied assumption of risk, the infant plaintiff in this case did not assume a risk at the moment he attempted to lift the 295-pound bar. Rather, his assumption of risk occurred when he joined the football team …, and the risks he assumed were limited to those that are inherent in the sport of football. The risk of losing control of a 295-pound bar is not a risk inherent in the sport of football … . Annitto v Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 06098, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: This decision clarifies the boundaries of the assumption-of-the-risk as it applies to school sports. When the plaintiff-student joined the football team, he assumed the risks inherent in the game of football. Here, those risks were not deemed to extend to weight-training, even though the weight-training was football-related. The student’s negligent supervision action stemming from his weight-training injury was not precluded by the assumption-of-risk doctrine.

 

,

SIX TO TWELVE INCHES OF SNOW FELL OVERNIGHT AND PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AT AROUND 6:00 AM; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted on the ground that the storm-in-progress defense applied:

On March 15, 2017, at approximately 5:55 a.m., the plaintiff … allegedly was injured when he slipped and fell on snow and ice on premises owned by the defendants. …

“Under the storm-in-progress rule, a property owner, tenant in possession, or, where relevant, a snow removal contractor will not be held responsible for accidents caused by snow or ice that accumulates during a storm until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow . . . an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm” … . However, once a landowner or a tenant in possession elects to engage in snow removal during a storm in progress, “it is required to act with reasonable care so as to avoid creating a hazardous condition or exacerbating a natural hazard created by the storm” … . “The mere failure of a defendant to remove all of the snow and ice, without more, does not establish that the defendant increased the risk of harm” … .

Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted … [plaintiff’s] deposition testimony, which established … that snow began to fall the day before the incident and continued to fall into the overnight hours, producing 6 to 12 inches of snow, and that the defendants did not have a reasonably sufficient time to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm … . Henenlotter v Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 23, 2022 NY Slip Op 06116, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Here six to twelve inches of snow fell overnight and plaintiff slipped and fell around 6 in the morning. The appellate court determined the storm-in-progress defense applied and defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

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