You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304, including compliance with the “one envelope” rule:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish … that it strictly complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . Moreover, in support of their cross motion, the defendants … demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff included additional material in the same envelope as the RPAPL 1304 notice, in violation of the separate mailing requirement of RPAPL 1304(2) … . US Bank N.A. v Kaplan, 2022 NY Slip Op 01201, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, , ,

THE BANK FAILED TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON IN ITS AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; SUPREME COURT’S DETERMINATION THE BANK HAD COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE PRECLUDING RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the failure to identify and attach the documents demonstrating the defendants’ default in this foreclosure action rendered the bank’s affidavit inadmissible hearsay. The court noted that Supreme Court’s determination the bank had complied with the notice requirements of RPAL 1304 was the law of the case precluding reconsideration of the issue pursuant to defendants’ cross motion:

The plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Richard L. Penno, a vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Based upon his review of Wells Fargo’s books and records concerning the defendants’ loan, Penno attested to the defendants’ default in payment. However, Penno did not identify the records he relied upon in order to attest to the defendants’ default and did not attach them to his affidavit … . “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence, a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . Thus, Penno’s assertions as to the contents of Wells Fargo’s servicing records were inadmissible … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, a review of records maintained in the normal course of business does not vest an affiant with personal knowledge … . …

… [C]ontrary to the defendants’ … contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 and the notice of default provision of the mortgage agreement. The plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and the notice of default provision of the mortgage agreement were both considered and decided in the plaintiff’s favor on its motion for summary judgment. Therefore, while it is true that a defense based on noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 may be raised at any time … , the doctrine of law of the case precluded the court from reconsidering those issues on the defendants’ cross motion … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Ramanababu, 2022 NY Slip Op 01199, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DEFICIENT; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT RENDERED THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action was deficient, and the failure to submit the business records referred to in the bank’s affidavit rendered the affidavit inadmissible hearsay:

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Becky J. Layman, an officer of the plaintiff. Layman’s assertions that the plaintiff complied with the notice of default provision of the mortgage and that the plaintiff complied with the notice provision of RPAPL 1304 were insufficient, since she failed to provide proof of the actual mailings or attest to knowledge of the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures … . Layman’s affidavit was also insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the defendant defaulted under the note and mortgage, since her purported knowledge was based upon review of unidentified business records which were not attached to her affidavit … . Thus, her assertions regarding the defendant’s default, without the business records upon which she relied in making those assertions, constituted inadmissible hearsay … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Campbell, 2022 NY Slip Op 01198, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, ,

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT COULD NOT COMMENCE A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WHILE THE DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS STILL REPRESENTED HIM, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACTION WAS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a decision addressing several issues not summarized here, determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine rendered the legal malpractice action timely:

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations until June 24, 2013, when the Supreme Court … vacated the March 18, 2013 order, and … granted W & H’s [defendants-attorneys] motion for leave to withdraw as counsel. Inasmuch as W & H’s motion to withdraw as counsel, which was opposed by Michele [plaintiff’s decedent] , was initially denied, Michele could not be expected to commence an action to recover damages for legal malpractice against W & H while the representation continued … . Accordingly, the court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the legal malpractice cause of action as time-barred. Tulino v Hiller, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 01197, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

, , , ,

IN THIS TENANT HARASSMENT AND PRIVATE NUISANCE ACTION BY TENANTS AGAINST THE LANDLORD, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENTIRELY PROHIBITING VIDEO CAMERAS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the tenant-plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting the landlord from maintaining video cameras in the interior of the building. Supreme Court had only prohibited video cameras outside the bathrooms. The tenants alleged the landlord was taking actions designed to force them to leave and alleged causes of action for tenant harassment and private nuisance:

Generally, the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court … . “[A] movant must establish (1) a probability of success on the merits, (2) a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and (3) a balance of the equities in the movant’s favor” … . In granting, in part, those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion which were for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from operating the video cameras in the interior portions of the property and from conducting inspections on the property without reasonable notice, the court properly, in effect, determined that the plaintiffs had established a probability of success on the merits, a danger of irreparable injury, and that the equities favor them. The court, however, improvidently exercised its discretion in limiting that preliminary injunction to enjoining the defendants only from operating video cameras that capture persons entering or exiting any bathrooms in the property. Under the circumstances of this case, the court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety, and preliminarily enjoined the defendants from operating video cameras in the interior portions of the property. Suchdev v Grunbaum, 2022 NY Slip Op 01195, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

THE ROLLED UP MAT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL WAS KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF AND WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the rolled up map which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall was open and obvious and therefore nonactionable:

While a possessor of real property has a duty to maintain that property in a reasonably safe condition … , “there is no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous” … . “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'” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the rolled-up mat, which was known to the plaintiff prior to the accident, was open and obvious, and was not inherently dangerous … . Williams v E & R Jamaica Food Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 01065, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

NO ONE MOVED TO QUASH THE NONJUDICIAL SUBPOENA SERVED ON A NONPARTY; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE MOTION TO COMPEL THE NONPARTY’S APPEARANCE AT A DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have compelled the former Town Supervisor (St. Lawrence) to appear for depositions in this slip and fall case:

… [T]he plaintiff served nonparty Christopher St. Lawrence, former Town Supervisor for the Town, with a nonjudicial subpoena directing him to appear for a deposition. St. Lawrence failed to appear for the deposition as directed in the subpoena, and the plaintiff moved … to compel him to comply with that subpoena by appearing for a deposition … . … Supreme Court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

Since the Supreme Court found that the subpoena was proper, that no one had moved to quash it, and that St. Lawrence had failed to comply with it, the court should have directed St. Lawrence to comply with the subpoena (see CPLR 2308[b] …). … [T]he court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to compel St. Lawrence to comply with the subpoena by directing him to appear for a deposition …  Thus, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, to schedule the deposition in compliance with the subpoena and for further proceedings to compel compliance with the subpoena. Schiller v Town of Ramapo, 2022 NY Slip Op 01061, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

,

THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT IS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH,” AND, IF SO WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; THE JUDGE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT A GUILTY PLEA TO SECOND DEGREE MURDER FROM THE JUVENILE DEFENDANT; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined: (1) because defendant pled guilty to “armed felonies,” the judge was required to determine on the record whether defendant was an “eligible youth” and, if so, whether he should be afforded youthful offender status; (2) the judge was not authorized to accept a guilty plea for second degree murder from the juvenile defendant; and (3) the waiver of appeal was invalid:

… Supreme Court was required to determine on the record whether the defendant was an “eligible youth” (CPL 720.10[2][a][ii]), by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10(3), and, if so, whether he should be afforded youthful offender status … . …

… Supreme Court was not authorized to accept a plea of guilty to count 3 [second degree murder]. As a juvenile offender, the defendant cannot be held criminally responsible for felony murder where the underlying felony, attempted robbery, is a crime for which he cannot be held criminally responsible (see CPL 1.20[42][2]; Penal Law § 30.00[2]; People v Stowe, 15 AD3d 597, 598; Matter of Tracy C., 186 AD2d 250, 251; People v Smith, 152 AD2d 56, 61). Accordingly, … the defendant’s plea of guilty to murder in the second degree … must be set aside … .

… Supreme Court’s oral colloquy and written appeal waiver mischaracterized the nature of the appeal waiver as an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal and a forfeiture of the attendant right to counsel and poor person relief … . People v Shelton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01050, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

,

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT MEANINGFULLY RESPOND TO A NOTE FROM THE JURY; RE-READING THE ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; CONVICTION REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed the judgment of conviction and ordered a new trial because the trial judge did not meaningfully respond to a note from the jury. Under the facts here, re-reading the original instructions was not sufficient:

… [W]hen the jury was deliberating, the County Court failed to meaningfully respond to one of the jury’s notes. “Pursuant to CPL 310.30, the trial court has an obligation to meaningfully respond to all questions from the jury during deliberations” … . “Although simply rereading the original instructions may, under the appropriate circumstances, constitute a meaningful response” … , here, it was error for the court to respond to the jury’s last question about the elements of one of the charges by simply rereading its original instructions. The jury had previously sent a note about that charge demonstrating its initial confusion about that instruction … . The record reflects that defense counsel and the court perceived that, with respect to the jury note at issue, the jury may have been asking whether the defendant was required to know of the falsity of the information in the document that was alleged to contain false information at the time she submitted it to the Department of Health investigator. Notwithstanding its perception about the jury’s inquiry, the court did not seek any further clarification from the jury about that note. Under these circumstances, at a minimum, the court should have asked the jurors to again clarify their request … . People v Manzano, 2022 NY Slip Op 01040, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

, ,

THE PETITIONERS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE OPERATION OF A CONCRETE PLANT WOULD CAUSE INJURIES TO THEM DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SUFFERED BY THE PUBLIC AT LARGE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE RENOVATION AND OPERATION OF THE PLANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioners had standing to contest the renovation and operation of a concrete plant:

Supreme Court improperly determined that the Hill & Dale petitioners and the Veteri petitioners lacked standing to challenge the ZBA’s determination. The Hill & Dale petitioners alleged environmental injuries to a private lake owned by Hill & Dale, which was situated directly across from the subject property, as well as interference with recreational activities enjoyed in and around the lake, and impacts to their properties from increased noise, truck traffic, dust, and pollutants from the concrete manufacturing use. These alleged injuries were different from those suffered by the public at large … , and fell within the zone of interests protected by the Town’s zoning laws … . Similarly, the Veteri petitioners sufficiently alleged that they would be adversely affected by the ZBA’s determination and that their alleged injuries fell within the zone of interests protected by the zoning laws. Matter of Veteri v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Kent, 2022 NY Slip Op 01030, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

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