You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action, the defendants properly raised plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in opposition to the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, and the plaintiff’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed … to establish its standing to commence this action. The copy of the note submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion contained two additional pages, the first entitled “Allonge to Note” and the second entitled “Note Allonge.” However, as the defendants correctly contend, the plaintiff did not submit any evidence to indicate that the purported allonges were so firmly affixed to the note so as to become a part thereof (see UCC 3-202[2] …). …

… [S]ince the proper service of a RPAPL 1304 notice is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, the defendants could properly raise this defense for the first time in their opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and the burden of establishing prima facie compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 was with the plaintiff … . …

… [I]n order to establish its compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff submitted two affidavits from its “authorized signer,” Tracy A. Duck. However, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, neither affidavit was sufficient to establish the plaintiff’s strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Among other things, Duck did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the entity that purportedly sent the notices … . Moreover, the business records attached to Duck’s second affidavit were insufficient to establish compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . LNV Corp. v Almberg, 2021 NY Slip Op 02791, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM AND WAS OPERATED ON BY AN INDEPENDENT SURGEON; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE EMERGENCY ROOM EXCEPTION APPLIED AND THE HOSPITAL WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE SURGEON’S ALLEGED MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff demonstrated the emergency room exception applied and defendant hospital could be held vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice an independent surgeon:

In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment, but not for the negligence or malpractice of an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself or herself … . However, as an exception to this rule, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the acts of independent physicians if the patient enters the hospital through the emergency room and seeks treatment from the hospital, not from a particular physician … .

Here, the plaintiff satisfied her prima facie burden of demonstrating that the emergency room exception applies by producing evidence that the decedent was brought to the Hospital’s emergency room by ambulance, did not request treatment by a particular physician, and was assigned to Reichman’s care by the Hospital … . Goffredo v St. Luke’s Cornwall Hosp., 2021 NY Slip Op 02788, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE CORD WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL MAY HAVE BEEN OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not establish that the cord or wire over which plaintiff tripped and fell was not inherently dangerous, even if the cord was open and obvious:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped and fell over a cord or microphone wire while attending an event at certain property purportedly owned by the defendants … . She commenced this action against the defendants and one other defendant to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion on the ground that the condition of the wire or cord was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The plaintiff appeals.

In support of their motion, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the cord or wire was not inherently dangerous … . Franzo v Town of Hempstead, 2021 NY Slip Op 02787, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIQUID ON THE DANCE FLOOR IN THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of liquid on the dance floor in the area of plaintiff’s slip and fall:

The defendants did not submit any evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, or any other affirmative proof to demonstrate how long the condition had existed. In support of their motion, they submitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of Hercules Sirico, the catering hall owner, who testified that the wood dance floor would be cleaned on an as-needed basis by one of the porters, of whom he was in charge. Sirico also testified that, on the night of the subject party, he entered the ballroom where the party was being held multiple times to make sure that members of his staff were doing things properly, but did not stay in the ballroom during the entire party. Although Sirico testified that, while he was in the ballroom, he always took a look at the dance floor and did not notice any wetness or liquids on it, he also testified that every time he was in the ballroom, the dance floor was always packed, with more than 100 people dancing, that guests would get drinks at the “constantly busy” mobile bar situated just “shy” of the dance floor, and bring the drinks onto the dance floor, and that no one stopped or warned the guests from doing so. Further, the defendants submitted the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, during which the plaintiff testified that when he went to dance, he was slipping and sliding on the dance floor because it was wet, that there were a lot of people on the dance floor with drinks, and that it was “very dark” in the ballroom. Ellis v Sirico’s Catering, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02785, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

,

THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION MET THE DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 308 (4); THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should not have been granted. The process server for the bank in this foreclosure action satisfied the due diligence requirement for service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4):

There were four attempts to serve the defendants at their residence at times when they could reasonably have been expected to be found there, including attempts on a late weekday evening, an early weekday morning, a weekend evening, and a weekday afternoon … . As the plaintiff established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that personal jurisdiction was acquired over the defendants, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them … and decided the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the merits instead of, in effect, denying it as academic. Wilmington Trust Co. v Gewirtz, 2021 NY Slip Op 02562, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAIVED DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS DISPOSITIVE AND NEVER LITIGATED; THE BANK’S FAILURE TO TIMELY MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE BANK’S ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bank’s failure to move for a default judgment within one year required dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). The court noted that Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, held defendant waived dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c) because the issue had never been litigated:

Although the Supreme Court keenly observed that the defendants had filed a notice of appearance in the first action in October 2014, it should not have, sua sponte, determined that such notice of appearance constituted a waiver of their right to seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), as the parties never litigated the issue of waiver. Since that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint had “‘dispositive import'” … , the court should have notified the parties of the waiver issue and afforded them an opportunity to be heard prior to determining the cross motion on a ground neither side argued. …

“The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory, inasmuch as courts ‘shall’ dismiss claims (CPLR 3215[c]) for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one-year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned” … . “‘Failure to take proceedings for entry of judgment may be excused, however, upon a showing of sufficient cause,’ which requires the plaintiff to ‘demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for the delay in taking proceedings for entry of a default judgment and that it has a potentially meritorious action'” … . Wells Fargo Bank v Aucapina, 2021 NY Slip Op 02561, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

,

AFTER WALKING OVER A TRAP DOOR, PLAINTIFF STEPPED BACK AND FELL THROUGH THE OPEN DOOR; DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the lease did not unambiguously insulate the out-of-possession landlord from liability for plaintiff’s fall through an open trap door in a deli, the landlord demonstrated it did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Apparently plaintiff walked over the closed trap door but then stepped back and fell through the open door:

… [T]he owner failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it was an out-of-possession landlord that did not have a contractual duty under the lease to maintain and repair the subject trapdoor … . “‘[W]hile the meaning of a contract is ordinarily a question of law, when a term or clause is ambiguous and the determination of the parties’ intent depends upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence or a choice among inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, then the issue is one of fact'” … . Although paragraph 46 of the rider to the lease effectively limits the owner’s responsibility to “structural portions” of the deli, that phrase is only partially described in the lease, and is not so clear and unambiguous as to be subject only to the interpretation that it excludes the trapdoor … .

However, the owner established, prima facie, that it did not create the allegedly dangerous condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence … . At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that he walked over the trapdoor, and then “seconds” later when he stepped back, he fell through a hole caused by the open trapdoor. Accordingly, even though the owner did not present evidence of the last time it inspected the trapdoor, the plaintiff’s testimony establishes lack of constructive notice as a matter of law … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the owner’s representative testified at his deposition that he was aware of the existence and location of the trapdoor and went into the deli once a month to collect rent, a general awareness that customers could fall through an open trapdoor in the aisle of the deli is legally insufficient to constitute constructive notice of the particular condition that caused the plaintiff’s accident … . Vaughan v Triumphant Church of Jesus Christ, 2021 NY Slip Op 02560, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

,

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION A DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF STANDING IS NOT A DISMISSAL ON THE MERITS RE: RES JUDICATA; A SECOND DISCONTINUANCE WHICH IS NOT ON NOTICE IS NOT A DISCONTINUANCE WITH PREJUDICE RE: CPLR 3217 (C) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that a foreclosure action dismissed for lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits. The court further noted that a second discontinuance is not with prejudice, i.e., on the merits, unless it is on notice:

“‘Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties of all other claims arising out of the same transaction or out of the same or related facts, even if based upon a different theory involving materially different elements of proof'” … . However, “a dismissal premised on lack of standing is not a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes” … .. Here, the instant action was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the 2014 action was dismissed for, inter alia, lack of standing, and that does not qualify as a dismissal on the merits for res judicata purposes … .

CPLR 3217(c) provides that “[u]nless otherwise stated in the notice, stipulation or order of discontinuance, the discontinuance is without prejudice, except that a discontinuance by means of notice operates as an adjudication on the merits if the party has once before discontinued by any method an action based on or including the same cause of action.” The dismissal of the second action after a previous discontinuance only operates as an adjudication on the merits if that second discontinuance is achieved by means of notice … . Here, after the 2010 action was discontinued by means of notice, the 2014 action was dismissed after the defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted. Since the 2014 action was not discontinued by means of notice, CPLR 3217(c) is inapplicable to this instant action. US Bank Trust, N.A. v Loring, 2021 NY Slip Op 02559, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FRAUD, THE JUDICIARY LAW 487 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ALLEGED THE DECEIT OCCURRED DURING A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-attorney’s motion to dismiss the Judiciary Law 487 cause of action should have been granted because the deceit or fraud was not alleged to have occurred during a judicial proceeding. Plaintiff alleged the misrepresentation concerned a guaranty for payment on a note related to the sale of plaintiff’s business:

Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the fourth cause of action. “[A] Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action requires that the alleged deceit occurred during a judicial proceeding in which the plaintiff was a party” … . Here, the complaint failed to allege that the deceit occurred during a judicial proceeding or before any court … . Pszeniczny v Horn, 2021 NY Slip Op 02553, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

,

MORTGAGES ISSUED BY NYS FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM NYS MORTGAGE RECORDING TAX (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that mortgages issued by NYS federal credit unions are not exempt from the NYS mortgage recording tax:

This precise question was decided in Hudson Val. Fed. Credit Union v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. (20 NY3d 1, 13), where the Court of Appeals held that, based on principles of statutory interpretation and the legislative history of the Federal Credit Union Act, mortgages issued by New York State federal credit unions are not exempt from the imposition of the New York State mortgage recording tax. This Court is bound by the Court of Appeals’ decision in Hudson Val. Fed. Credit Union, despite conflicting federal intermediate court decisions which post-date it (see People v Jackson, 46 AD3d 1110). O’Donnell & Sons, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2021 NY Slip Op 02535, Second Dept 4-28-21

 

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