You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 FIRST SUBMITTED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; THE EVIDENCE THE BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s proof of mailing of the foreclosure notice first submitted in reply should not have been considered, and plaintiff did not demonstrate it had standing to bring the foreclosure action:

… [T]he affidavits that the plaintiff appended to its moving papers failed to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by first-class mail in accordance with RPAPL 1304. While the plaintiff submitted an additional affidavit in reply, with proof of first-class mailing attached, this evidence should not have been considered in the determination of whether the plaintiff met its prima facie burden, as the issue which the new evidence was intended to address was not an issue raised for the first time in the defendants’ opposition, and the defendants were not afforded an opportunity to submit a surreply in response to the plaintiff’s newly submitted evidence in reply … . …

[Re; standing:] …[T]he plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the 2003 note and 2004 note, which together constituted the consolidated note, and each note was accompanied by an undated purported allonge endorsed to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the purported allonges, each of which was on a piece of paper completely separate from the corresponding note, was “so firmly affixed” to the corresponding note “as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Murray, 2022 NY Slip Op 05110, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Evidence of compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 first submitted in reply should not have been considered.

Practice Point: The bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action.

 

, , ,

ONCE PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISCONTINUED BY STIPULATION, THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT COULD BE AMENDED TO SEEK RECOVERY ON THE NOTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff, after its foreclosure action was discontinued, could amend the foreclosure complaint to seek recovery on the note:

“‘RPAPL 1301(3) . . . prohibits a party from commencing an action at law to recover any part of the mortgage debt while the foreclosure proceeding is pending or has not reached final judgment, without leave of the court in which the foreclosure action was brought'” ( … see RPAPL 1301[3]). Conversely, “‘where a foreclosure action is no longer pending and did not result in a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, the plaintiff is not precluded from commencing a separate action without leave of the court'” … .

Here, pursuant to the so-ordered stipulation and the plaintiff’s release of the mortgage, the cause of action to foreclose the mortgage was, in effect, discontinued, without the entry of any judgment in the plaintiff’s favor … . Since the cause of action to foreclose the mortgage was no longer pending, the plaintiff was not precluded from seeking to recover on the note by RPAPL 1301(3), “‘a statute which must be strictly construed'” … .

Furthermore, “there is no reason the plaintiff could not seek such relief by seeking leave to amend its complaint, rather than by commencing a new action” … . Stewart Tit. Ins. Co. v Zaltsman, 2022 NY Slip Op 05107, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Here the foreclosure action was discontinued and plaintiff was allowed to amend the foreclosure complaint to seek recovery on the note.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DETERIORATION OF A TREE LIMB WHICH FELL ON PLANTIFF’S CAR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owners (Monacos) did not have constructive notice of the deteriorated condition of a tree limb which fell on plaintiff’s car:

In cases involving fallen trees, a property owner will only be held liable for a tree that falls outside of his or her premises and injures another if he or she knew or should have known of the defective condition of the tree … . Constructive notice may be based upon signs of decay or other defects that are readily observable by someone on the ground or that a reasonable inspection would have revealed … . “At least as to adjoining landowners, the concept of constructive notice with respect to liability for falling trees is that there is no duty to consistently and constantly check all trees for nonvisible decay. Rather, the manifestation of said decay must be readily observable in order to require a landowner to take reasonable steps to prevent harm” … . * * *

The plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any visible defect or decay would have been readily observable by the Monacos prior to the fall of the limb … . Although the plaintiff’s expert concluded that there was visible decay at the top of the branch where it had been attached to the trunk, approximately 12 feet above grade, and that such decay caused the branch to fall, his conclusions were based upon close observation, and therefore, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Monacos should have realized that a potentially defective condition existed … . Sasso v Village of Bronxville, 2022 NY Slip Op 05105, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Here a tree limb fell on plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff’s expert concluded the tree limb was deteriorated, but only after close inspection of the limb. The expert evidence did not raise a question of fact about whether the property owner’s had constructive knowledge of the condition of the limb.

 

,

THE RULING THAT PETITIONER-CORRECTION-OFFICER’S DISABLING CONDITION WAS NOT CAUSED BY AN ALTERCATION WITH AN INMATE WAS SUPPORTED BY “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;” “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE” IN THIS CONTEXT IS DEFINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that substantial evidence supported the ruling by the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (hereinafter the Board of Trustees) that petitioner-correction-officer’s disabling condition was not related to an altercation with an inmate. Therefore petitioner was not entitled to disability benefits. The dissent would have ordered a new hearing because of the possibility untrue information in the record (i.e., that petitioner altered an MRI report) affected the ruling:

Ordinarily, the decision of the board of trustees as to the cause of an officer’s disability will not be disturbed unless its factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence or its final determination and ruling is arbitrary and capricious” … . Substantial evidence has been construed in disability cases, as requiring some credible evidence … . Credible evidence has been described as evidence that proceeds from a credible source, which reasonably tends to support the proposition for which it is offered … . * * *

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention and the position of our dissenting colleague, the record does not demonstrate that the Board of Trustees was misled by reports prepared by the Medical Board that contained a statement that the petitioner altered an MRI report or by statements that he returned to “full duty” after the incident and continued to work for “several years.” With regard to the MRI report, … the Chair of the Medical Board informed the Board of Trustees that the discrepancy between the MRI reports submitted on two different days was resolved by the inspector general’s office and that the addendum was written by a doctor. With regard to the issue of whether the petitioner returned to full duty and continued to work for several years, when he worked for approximately one year and seven months after the incident, the petitioner had multiple opportunities to testify and to present evidence of these facts, which the Board of Trustees considered. Matter of Singleton v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys., 2022 NY Slip Op 05089, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: In the context of a Retirement and Social Security Law disability-benefits hearing to determine whether a correction officer’s disabling condition was caused by an altercation with an inmate, the denial of disability benefits must be supported by “substantial evidence” which requires “some credible evidence,” meaning evidence from a “credible source.” Here the denial of benefits was upheld.

 

,

AFTER THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S DEATH, THE GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY IS ALLOWED TO PAY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, BUT NOT CLAIMS UNRELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, FROM THE GUARDIANSHIP ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the guardian (Mock) of the incapacitated person’s (Lillian’s) property should not have been ordered to pay a claim out of the guardianship estate after Lillian’s death. Only administrative expenses can be paid out of the guardianship estate:

Mock’s authority as the guardian of Lillian’s property expired with Lillian’s death (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36[a][3] …), “and the property in the guardianship account that remained after the fees of the guardianship were paid would normally have passed to her estate” (… see SCPA 103[19]). Mental Hygiene Law § 81.44(e) allows a guardian to retain, “pending the settlement of the guardian’s final account, guardianship property equal in value to the claim for administrative costs, liens and debts.” The legislature intended to allow guardians “a reserve to cover reasonably anticipated administrative expenses,” but did not intend to allow guardians “to retain funds following the death of an incapacitated person for the purpose of paying a claim” … . Inasmuch as the $255,000 sought by the petitioner is unrelated to the administration of Lillian’s guardianship, Mock lacked the authority to make payment to the petitioner from the guardianship estate … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the petitioner’s cross motion and in directing Mock to pay the petitioner the sum of $255,000 from the guardianship estate. Matter of Lillian G. (Steven G.–Gary G.), 2022 NY Slip Op 05087, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: A guardian of an incapacitated person’s property may only pay administrative expenses from the guardianship estate after the incapacitated person’s death. Here the court should not have ordered payment of a claim unrelated to administrative expenses from the guardianship estate.

 

PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER IN DEFENDANT MC RAE’S VEHICLE WHEN MC RAE’S VEHICLE WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND; THE ALLEGATION THAT MC RAE STOPPED FOR NO APPARENT REASON RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER MC CRAE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WILL PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO CROSS CLAIMS BETWEEN DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant driver’s (McRae’s) motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should not have been granted. Plaintiff was a passenger in defendant McRae’s vehicle. McRae alleged his vehicle was stopped when it was struck by defendant NYC Transit Authority’s (NYCTA’s) bus (driven by defendant Pena). Defendants NYCTA and Pena alleged McRae stopped his vehicle for no apparent reason raising a question of fact about whether defendant McRae was comparatively negligent. Comparative negligence will preclude summary judgment with respect to cross claims between defendants:

… [T]he plaintiff established, prima facie, that NYCTA and Pena were negligent. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the transcript of his deposition testimony, which demonstrated that the bus Pena was operating struck McRae’s stopped vehicle in the rear. In opposition, the NYCTA defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The NYCTA defendants submitted, among other things, an affidavit in which Pena averred that McRae made a right turn into the path of the bus and began to move forward, but then stopped short. In essence, this explanation amounts to nothing more than a claim that McRae’s vehicle came to a sudden stop which, without more, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to NYCTA and Pena’s liability … .

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of McRae’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. In support of his motion, McRae submitted his affidavit, in which he averred that his vehicle, while stopped at a red light, was struck in the rear by the bus operated by Pena. Thus, McRae established, prima facie, that Pena was solely at fault in the happening of the accident … . In opposition, however, the NYCTA defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether McRae was comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident because he stopped suddenly for no apparent reason … . Thompson v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 05052, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff was a passenger in defendant McRae’s car which was struck from behind by a NYC Transit Authority (NYCTA) bus. Defendant NYCTA raised a question fact about Mc Rae’s comparative negligence by alleging Mc Rae stopped suddenly for no apparent reason. Comparative negligent will preclude summary judgment with respect to cross-claims between defendants.

 

,

DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN THE PATH OF PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND DISMISSING THE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissing the comparative negligence affirmative defense in this intersection traffic accident case should have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting his deposition testimony and the deposition testimony of the defendant driver, which demonstrated that the defendant driver made a left turn directly into the path of the plaintiff’s vehicle without yielding the right-of-way to the plaintiff, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, and when it was not reasonably safe to make a left turn, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(a) … . The plaintiff also established, prima facie, that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence by demonstrating that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident and that the defendant driver’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . The plaintiff, who had the right-of-way, was entitled to anticipate that a vehicle turning left would obey the traffic laws requiring that vehicle to yield, and the evidence established that the plaintiff did not have a sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident when the defendant driver turned left directly into the path of the plaintiff’s vehicle … . Seizeme v Levy, 2022 NY Slip Op 05049, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Defendant made a left turn in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic causing a collision with plaintiff in the oncoming lane. Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability and dismissing the comparative negligence affirmative defense.

THE LEG OF A LARGE DECORATIVE THRONE IN DEFENDANT’S BAR WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT AN ACTIONABLE TRIPPING HAZARD; PLAINTIFF HAD FREQUENTED THE BAR AND THE THRONE WAS READILY OBSERVABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the leg of a large decorative throne in defendant’s bar was open and obvious and therefore was not an actionable tripping hazard:

… [T]he defendant established … that the large decorative throne that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous … . “‘[T]here is no duty to protect or warn of conditions that are not inherently dangerous and that are readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses'” … . “‘A condition is open and obvious if it is readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, given the conditions at the time of the accident'” … . “‘The determination of [w]hether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances, and whether a condition is not inherently dangerous, or constitutes a reasonably safe environment, depends on the totality of the specific facts of each case'” … .

Here, … the alleged defective condition was readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses and was not inherently dangerous. The deposition testimony of a pianist who had performed at the bar for more than 20 years established that the throne was a novelty of the establishment, which drew in patrons. Further, the plaintiff’s own testimony established that he was aware of the throne, as he frequented the establishment and purported to have previously complained to the manager about its location … . Rider v Manhattan Monster, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05048, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff allegedly tripped over the leg of a large decorative throne in defendant’s bar. The throne was a readily observable novelty which drew patrons to the bar. Plaintiff frequented the bar and was well aware of the location of the throne. Because the throne was open and obvious it did not constitute an actionable tripping hazard.

 

, ,

HERE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT COMPLETE THE TREATMENT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT; THE GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE WHICH USUALLY REQUIRES THAT THE PLEA BE VACATED; HERE SUPREME COURT FELT DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BY THE TREATMENT PROGRAM AND PROPERLY EXERCISED DISCRETION IN FASHIONING A SENTENCE MUCH LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT, LEAVING THE GUILTY PLEA IN PLACE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised discretion in the face of defendant’s failure to complete treatment as required by the plea agreement. The court found that, although defendant had relapsed during the treatment for alcoholism, the relapse did not justify his being terminated by the program. Therefore the court did not vacate defendant’s guilty plea (on the ground it was induced by an unfulfilled promise) and fashioned a drastically reduced sentence (time served):

“[I]n most instances when a guilty plea has been induced by an unfulfilled promise either the plea must be vacated or the promise honored, but that the choice rests in the discretion of the sentencing court” … . In this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that, although the defendant spent more than a year in residential substance abuse treatment programs, specific performance of the conditional plea agreement was not warranted. Although the court did not believe that the defendant’s alcohol relapse and other reported problems at the final treatment program he attended were the real reason for his discharge, those issues nevertheless suggested that the defendant’s alcoholism, which played a role in his commission of the instant offenses, remained an unresolved concern.

Moreover, the manner in which this case was ultimately resolved essentially split the difference between what was promised if the defendant was successful in treatment, and the sentence the Supreme Court could have imposed if he was not. Although the defendant’s conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree was not vacated, he was effectively sentenced to time served, instead of four years in prison. In addition, the alternative sentence that was contemplated at the time of the defendant’s pleas of guilty included seven years of postrelease supervision. Because the court sentenced the defendant to definite terms of imprisonment, however, he avoided being subject to postrelease supervision … . People v Boissard, 2022 NY Slip Op 05042, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Usually a guilty plea induced by a plea agreement that was not fulfilled will be vacated. Here the defendant did not wish to withdraw his guilty plea and the court properly exercised discretion in fashioning a sentence much more lenient than that required by the plea agreement. The judge took into account the defendant’s attempts to comply with the treatment required by the plea agreement, and expressed the opinion defendant should not have been terminated by the program.

 

,

PETITIONER WAS ISSUED A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH 557 PARKING SPACES; THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED BECAUSE THE TOWN CODE REQUIRED 624 PARKING SPACES; BECAUSE THE PERMIT WAS INVALID, PETITIONER COULD NOT INVOKE THE “DOCTRINE OF VESTED RIGHTS” FOR A VARIANCE ALLOWING 557 SPACES (SECOND DEPARTMENT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner was not entitled to a variance pursuant to the doctrine of vested rights. Petitioner had been issued a permit to build commercial space which included 557 parking spaces. The town subsequently revoked the permit because the town code required 624 parking spaces. Petitioner then applied for a variance arguing the permit which had been issued conveyed a vested right to the originally approved 557 parking spaces:

“The doctrine of vested rights is implicated when a property owner seeks to continue to use property, or to initiate the use of property, in a way that was permissible before enactment or amendment of a zoning ordinance but would not be permitted under a new zoning law” … . Such “a vested right can be acquired when, pursuant to a legally issued permit, the landowner demonstrates a commitment to the purpose for which the permit was granted by effecting substantial changes and incurring substantial expenses to further the development” … . However, “[v]ested rights cannot be acquired in reliance upon an invalid permit” … . “[T]he mistaken or erroneous issuance of a permit does not estop a municipality from correcting errors, even where there are harsh results” … . Here, as the ZBA [zoning board of appeals] soundly determined, the permit issued to the petitioner was invalid, since the Town Code plainly sets forth the method for calculating the nonresidential gross floor area according to which the number of required parking spaces is set and pursuant to that method, the required number of spaces exceeded the 557 spaces planned by the petitioner … . Since the permit issued to the petitioner was invalid, it could not have conferred vested rights … . Matter of C & B Realty #3, LLC v Van Loan, 2022 NY Slip Op 05036, Second Dept 8-24-22

Practice Point: Here the petitioner was issued a permit for construction which was later revoked as invalid because it violated the town code. The “doctrine of vested rights” does not apply to the provisions in an invalid permit. Therefore petitioner’s application for a variance to build according to the provisions of the revoked permit was denied. The “doctrine of vested rights” is explained in the decision.

 

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