You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ENTITLING THE DEFENDANTS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action was not entitled to summary judgment on its motion to confirm the referee’s report and obtain a judgment of foreclosure. The defendants demonstrated the bank did not comply with the “separate envelope” rule in RPAPL 1304, which entitled to defendants to summary judgment dismissing the complaint:

… [T]he defendants established that the notices served by the plaintiff pursuant to RPAPL 1304 contained additional material in the same envelope as the RPAPL 1304 notice. The copies of the 90-day notice previously submitted by the plaintiff included additional notices not contemplated by RPAPL 1304(2), to wit, a notice pertaining to the rights of a debtor in bankruptcy, a notice to those in military service, and a notice advising customers to beware of any organization that attempts to charge a fee for housing counseling or modification of a delinquent loan … . Since the RPAPL 1304 notice was not “‘served in an envelope that was separate from any other mailing or notice'” … , the plaintiff did not strictly comply with RPAPL 1304 … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Dedvukaj, 2022 NY Slip Op 04541, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: If the defendants demonstrate the bank in a foreclosure action did not comply with the “separate envelope” requirement of RPAPL 1304 (by including other information in the envelope containing the notice of foreclosure), the defendants will be granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

 

,

CLAIMANT WAS INJURED WHEN A TRUCK STRUCK THE BASKET OF THE MAN LIFT SHE WAS USING; THE FACT THAT CLAIMANT DIDN’T FALL FROM THE BASKET DID NOT WARRANT THE DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and 240(1) causes of action should not have been dismissed. Claimant was in the basket of a man lift when a car carrier (truck) struck the basket causing it to “ricochet back and forth/” The fact that claimant didn’t fall from the basket did not take the incident outside the scope of Labor Law 240(1):

The Court of Claims erred in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The defendant failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “The fact that the plaintiff did not actually fall from the [basket] is irrelevant as long as the ‘harm directly flow[ed] from the application of the force of gravity to [her] person'” … . Johnsen v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04540, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Here claimant was in the basket of a man lift when a truck struck the basket causing it to “ricochet back and forth.” The fact that claimant didn’t fall from the basket did not support the dismissal of the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Labor Laq 240(1) requires that the injury directly flow from the “application of gravity” to the person.

 

,

IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this rear-end collision case did not raise a question of fact by alleging plaintiff stopped suddenly:

… [P]laintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by averring that he had activated his right turn signal, had slowed to a speed of approximately five miles per hour, and was attempting to make a right turn when his vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … .

In opposition, the defendants submitted an affidavit of the defendant driver in which he averred that the plaintiff’s vehicle stopped short suddenly, causing the defendants’ vehicle to collide with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The defendants’ assertion that it was the sudden stop of the plaintiff’s vehicle which caused the accident was insufficient, in and of itself, to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for the happening of the rear-end collision … . Gil v Manhattan Beer Distribs., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04537, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: The defendant in a rear-end collision case does not raise a question of fact about a non-negligent explanation for the accident by alleging plaintiff stopped suddenly.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, AS WELL AS THE NOTICE REQUIRMENTS SPELLED OUT IN THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage:

… [P]laintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed to each defendant by certified and first-class mail. The affidavit submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion does not contain an attestation that the affiant had personal knowledge of the purported mailings nor does the affiant attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the Law Offices of McCabe, Weisberg, and Conway, P.C., the entity that allegedly sent the notices to the defendants on behalf of the loan servicer … . …

… [P]laintiff’s submission also failed to demonstrate that the RPAPL 1304 notices allegedly sent to the defendants contained the requisite list of five housing counseling agencies serving the region in which the subject property is located … . …

… [P]laintiff further failed to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notices were sent by the “lender, assignee, or loan servicer” as required by the statute … . … [T]he RPAPL notices were allegedly sent on August 7, 2014, by the Law Offices of McCabe, Weisberg, and Conway, P.C., on behalf of Ocwen Financial, the plaintiff’s loan servicer. However, the limited power of attorney authorizing Ocwen Financial to act on behalf of the plaintiff, which was submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, states that it was executed on and effective as of September 17, 2014.  …

… [P]laintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with a condition precedent contained in the mortgage agreement, requiring the lender to send a notice of default prior to the commencement of the action. The plaintiff’s submission failed to show that the required notice was sent to the defendants by first-class mail or actually delivered to the notice address if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pariser, 2022 NY Slip Op 04534, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Yet again, summary judgment in favor of the bank in a foreclosure proceeding is reversed because the bank did not prove strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage. Reversals on these grounds have appeared every week for at least five years, maybe more.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF SUED HER EMPLOYER IN NEGLIGENCE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY A COWORKER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS IN THE COURSE OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT; THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the causes of action against plaintiff’s employer for negligence alleging an assault by a coworker should not have been dismissed. Defendants’ alleged that Workers’ Compensation was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The Workers’ Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over determinations of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Because there were questions of fact about whether plaintiff was injured in the course of her employment, Supreme Court should have referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board:

… Supreme Court improperly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the negligence causes of action … . Since “primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board,” it is “inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board” … . Here, questions of fact were raised as to whether the plaintiff was injured during the course of her employment, and thus, the court should have referred the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board … . Chin v Doherty Enters., 2022 NY Slip Op 04532, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged she was assaulted by a coworker and sued her employer in negligence. There were questions of fact whether plaintiff was injured during the course her employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over determinations of the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law.. Therefore the negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed and the matter should have been referred to the Board.

,

HERE THE FRAMING COMPANY HIRED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND GIVEN SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK WAS LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AS A “STATUTORY AGENT” OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant South Ocean Framing was a statutory agent liable for plaintiff’s injury pursuant to  Labor Law 240(1). The general contractor hired South Ocean Framing, which in turn subcontracted the framing work to plaintiff’s employer. Plaintiff stepped on a beam which flipped out from under him and he fell 15 feet. He was entitled to summary judgment. With respect to the statutory-agent question, the court wrote:

Contrary to South Ocean’s … contention, it is liable under Labor Law § 240(1) as a statutory agent of the owner or general contractor, since it had the authority to supervise and control the particular work in which the plaintiff was engaged at the time of his injury .. . Once South Ocean became such an agent, it could not escape liability by delegating its work to another entity [i.e., plaintiff’s employer]. Mogrovejo v HG Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04299, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: The general contractor hired the framing company. The framing company hired plaintiff’s employer to do the framing. Because the framing company had supervisory control over plaintiff’s work, it was liable for plaintiff’s injury as a statutory agent under Labor Law 240 (1) and could not escape liability by delegating its supervisory role.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not prove the RPAPL 1304 was properly mailed to the defendants:

… [P]laintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff relied on copies of the RPAPL 1304 notices allegedly mailed, purported domestic return receipts, and an affidavit of Catherine Rogers, a foreclosure specialist for Seterus, Inc., the plaintiff’s purported servicer. However, the domestic return receipts were unsigned and undated, and there was no other indication that the certified or first class mailings were accepted by the post office for mailing. Rogers also did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the mailing or of Seterus, Inc.’s standard office procedure designed to ensure that the notices were mailed. Thus, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima, facie, that it complied with the notice of default requirement of the mortgage agreement … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Young, 2022 NY Slip Op 04292, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: The mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 must be strictly complied with and compliance must be proven in the bank’s summary judgment motion papers. Without proof of strict compliance, the motion must be denied.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANKRUPTCY STAY DID NOT TERMINATE WHEN DEFENDANT BOUGHT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE; THE STAY TERMINATED LATER WHEN DEFENDANT RECEIVED A DISCHARGE FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dowling, in a matter of first impression, determined the foreclosure action, which had been stayed when defendant twice filed for bankruptcy, was timely brought. If the stay ceased when defendant bought the subject property from the bankruptcy estate, the foreclosure would have been untimely. But the Second Department held that the stay did not cease until the subsequent discharge order, rendering the action timely:

… [D]efendant’s purchase of the Middle Pond Road property from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to the November 26, 2013 order did not terminate the automatic bankruptcy stay barring commencement of the instant foreclosure action, but rather, under the circumstances of this case, the automatic bankruptcy stay terminated when the defendant received a discharge from the Bankruptcy Court on November 3, 2014.

Pursuant to the plain language of 11 USC § 362(c)(1), the discharge of the … property from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to the November 26, 2013 order terminated the stays of an act against “property of the estate,” which stays are established by 11 USC § 362(a)(3) and (4). Here, however, upon the defendant’s purchase of the … property from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to November 26, 2013 order, ownership of the … property returned to the defendant, as debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding … . Consequently, the termination of the stay of an act against “property of the estate” provided for by 11 USC § 362(c)(1) has no bearing on the stays established by 11 USC § 362(a)(1) and (5), which expressly apply to acts taken against “the debtor” or “property of the debtor,” and which continued in effect. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Lubonty, 2022 NY Slip Op 04288, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here whether the foreclosure action was timely depended on when the bankruptcy stay terminated. The defendant in the foreclosure action was the “debtor” in the bankruptcy proceeding. The defendant bought the property which was the subject of the foreclosure action from the bankruptcy estate. Based on the applicable bankruptcy statute, the bankruptcy stay did not terminate when defendant bought the property. It terminated later when defendant received a discharge from the Bankruptcy Court. Because the stay terminated on the later date, the foreclosure action was timely.

 

,

RE: A MOTION FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY, IF ALLEGATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVITS ARE CONTROVERTED, A HEARING MUST BE HELD; TO BASE A TEMPORARY-CUSTODY RULING ON CONTROVERTED ALLEGATIONS IS AN ERROR OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined controverted allegations in the affidavits required a hearing on the motion for temporary residential custody of the child:

… [W]hile temporary custody may generally “be properly fixed without a hearing where sufficient facts are shown by uncontroverted affidavits, it is error as a matter of law to make an order respecting custody, even in a pendente lite context, based on controverted allegations without having had the benefit of a full hearing” … .

… [T]he record demonstrates disputed factual issues so as to require a hearing on the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, for temporary primary residential custody of the child … . Chukwuemeka v Chukuemeka, 2022 NY Slip Op 04287, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: A motion for temporary custody may be decided on the papers if the allegations are not controverted. If allegations are controverted, it is an error of law to determine the issue without a hearing.

 

, ,

THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT A DISPUTED ISSUE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDING; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THIS RELATED NEGLIGENCE ACTION AND ARGUING PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS PRESENTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE IDENTITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the collateral estoppel doctrine preclude defendants from disputing the identity of plaintiff’s employer because the issue was not in dispute the Workers’ Compensation proceeding. Plaintiff was a matron on a school bus and was injured when the bus was involved in a collision. Plaintiff sued the bus driver (Bonhome) and the bus company (Reliant). Defendants alleged plaintiff and Bonhome were both employed by Reliant and, therefore, Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s only remedy. But the defendants submitted conflicting evidence of the identity of plaintiff’s employer and therefore were not entitled to summary judgment:

… Bonhome and Reliant were not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from disputing the identity of the plaintiff’s employer. “Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party is precluded from ‘relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same'” … . “The quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies are entitled to collateral estoppel effect where the issue a party seeks to preclude in a subsequent civil action is identical to a material issue that was necessarily decided by the administrative tribunal and where there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate before that tribunal” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the identity of her employer was a disputed issue at a proceeding before the Workers’ Compensation Board, or that the Workers’ Compensation Board specifically adjudicated that issue…. .

… [T]he defendants submitted conflicting evidence regarding the identity of the plaintiff’s employer. Thus, they failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that both Bonhome and the plaintiff were employees of Reliant at the time of the accident … . Calixte v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04286, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: In this traffic accident case the identity of plaintiff’s employer was not in dispute in the prior Workers’ Compensation proceeding. The collateral estoppel doctrine, therefore, did not apply and defendant can contest the identity of plaintiff’s employer in the related negligence proceeding. If both plaintiff and defendant were employees of the same employer, Workers’ Compensation would be plaintiff’s only remedy.

 

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