You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

THE BORROWER’S APPLICATION FOR A LOAN MODIFICATION DID NOT RELIEVE THE BANK OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined (1) the bank was still required to provide the RPAPL1304 notice despite the application for a loan modification, and (2) the proof of mailing the notice was insufficient. The court noted that proof of mailing submitted for the first time in reply cannot be considered as part of the bank’s prima facie case:

When the instant action was commenced, RPAPL 1304(3) provided: “The ninety day period specified in the notice[ ] contained in [RPAPL 1304(1)] shall not apply, or shall cease to apply, if the borrower has filed [an application for the adjustment of debts of the borrower or an order for relief from the payment of debts], or if the borrower no longer occupies the residence as the borrower’s principal dwelling” … . A loan modification was not an adjustment of debts within the meaning of the version of RPAPL 1304(3) then in effect and, in any event, a lender was relieved only from the requirement to provide notice within the “ninety day period” (RPAPL 1304[3]), not from the requirement to provide the notice specified in RPAPL 1304(1) … . …

US Bank failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Although Ubinas stated in her affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, of an envelope addressed to the defendant bearing a certified mail 20-digit barcode, and of an envelope bearing a first-class mail postage stamp, US Bank failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually occurred. There is no copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute. Further, while Ubinas attested that she had personal knowledge of the record-making practices of Ocwen, and that the 90-day notice was sent in compliance with RPAPL 1304, she did not 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 defendant on behalf of Ocwen. On appeal, US Bank relies upon the signed certified mail return receipt submitted in reply. The moving party, however, cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Hammer, 2021 NY Slip Op 01439, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

,

THE COMPLAINT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION AT THE WORK SITE; THE DEFENDANTS IGNORED THAT THEORY IN THEIR MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOCUSED ON AN INAPPLICABLE THEORY (THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 200 action should not have been granted. There are two distinct theories which will support a Labor Law 200 cause of action. If the injury stems from the means and manner of the work, the defendant must have supervisory authority over the way the work is done. If the injury stems from a dangerous condition, the defendant must have control over the work site and must have created or had notice of the dangerous condition. Here plaintiff alleged a door at the work site was not adequately secured and he was injured when wind blew the door shut. The door therefore was alleged to constitute a dangerous condition. In their motion papers, however, the defendants addressed only the means-and-manner-of-work theory:

… [T]he plaintiff’s complaint and verified bill of particulars sounded almost entirely in premises liability, and alleged, inter alia, that the door was not properly constructed, placed, or secured, and that it lacked adequate securing devices. To establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants were obligated to address the proof applicable to the plaintiff’s dangerous condition theory of liability, or alternatively, to demonstrate, prima facie, that this case fell only within the ambit of the means and methods category of Labor Law § 200 cases … . On their motion, the defendants summarily concluded that the case exclusively implied a means and methods theory of liability, and contended that they only had general supervisory authority over the work site, which would be insufficient to impose liability for common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 in a means and methods case … . The defendants, however, failed to address premises liability and whether they either created the alleged dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it … . Rodriguez v HY 38 Owner, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01436, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLEA OFFER, RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT DEFENDANT ACCEPTED THE PLEA OFFER TO MAKE SURE HIS BAIL WOULD NOT BE INCREASED; DEFENDANT WAS WORRIED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO FIND CARE FOR HIS THREE-YEAR-OLD SON; BAIL SHOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERATION IN PLEA NEGOTIATIONS; THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea without holding a hearing. The matter was remitted for a hearing. The defendant was given a “last chance” to accept a plea offer just before the suppression hearing began. Defense counsel asked about bail at that time and then defendant met with defense counsel before deciding to take the plea offer. In his motion to withdraw the plea, defendant alleged that, based upon his discussion with defense counsel, he thought his bail would be substantially increased if he didn’t take the plea offer and was concerned about taking care of his three-year-old son. He had brought his son  to court because he couldn’t find a babysitter:

Bail status “has no legitimate connection to the mutuality of advantage underlying plea bargaining because it does not relate either to the more lenient sentence for which the defendant is negotiating or to the waiver of trial and the certainty of conviction the prosecution is seeking” … . Accordingly, “[t]he prospect of an immediate change in bail status, therefore, is an inappropriate consideration in plea negotiations” … .

Here, the plea bargaining process and the defendant’s affidavit raise a legitimate question as to the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea and, therefore, the defendant’s motion should not have been denied without a hearing … . The County Court’s response to defense counsel’s questions regarding bail, which included a statement that this was the defendant’s “last chance” to accept the offer, raise a legitimate question as to whether the defendant understood that the court’s purportedly forthcoming bail decision was contingent on acceptance of the offer. Notably, after the defendant accepted the plea, the court never brought up the issue of changing the defendant’s bail status, effectively continuing his release on cash bail without any changes … .  People v Swain, 2021 NY Slip Op 01430, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

, , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FIRST DETERMINED WHETHER ANY DISTRIBUTEES OF THE DECEASED MORTGAGORS WERE NECESSARY PARTIES [RPAPL 1311 (1)] AND, IF SO, SUMMON THEM PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 [b]; THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether any distributees of the deceased mortgagors were necessary parties in this foreclosure action. The motion to dismiss for failure to join necessary parties should not have been granted. The court should have determined whether joinder of any parties was required and then summon them pursuant to CPLR 1001 [b]:

Pursuant to RPAPL 1311(1), “necessary defendants” in a mortgage foreclosure action include, among others, “[e]very person having an estate or interest in possession, or otherwise, in the property as tenant in fee, for life, by the curtesy, or for years, and every person entitled to the reversion, remainder, or inheritance of the real property, or of any interest therein or undivided share thereof, after the determination of a particular estate therein.”

“In certain circumstances, the estate of the mortgagor is not a necessary party to a mortgage foreclosure action” … . In particular, “where a mortgagor/property owner dies intestate and the mortgagee does not seek a deficiency judgment, generally a foreclosure action may be commenced directly against the distributees,” in whom title to the real property automatically vests … .

Here, the plaintiff did not seek a deficiency judgment. However, questions of fact existed, which should have been resolved by the Supreme Court, as to whether any distributees of the deceased mortgagors, other than the defendants herein, retained an interest in the property such that they were necessary parties to the foreclosure action. Further, to the extent that there were such necessary parties to the action, dismissal of the complaint was not the proper remedy; rather, the property remedy in such instance is to direct the joinder of those parties (see CPLR 1001[b] … . NRZ Pass-Through Trust IV v Tarantola, 2021 NY Slip Op 01423, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

, , ,

ABSENT A REQUEST FROM A PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ASPECT OF THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the court should not have summarily dismissed the declaratory judgment aspect of this hybrid declaratory judgment/Article 78 action. The Second Department found that Supreme Court had properly affirmed the denial of a special use permit for a dog kennel, but the Second Department reinstated the request for a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of a related local law:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have summarily dismissed the cause of action for a judgment declaring that Town of Lewisboro Code § 220-23(D)(7) is unconstitutional. “In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand” … . “The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment” … . “‘Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action'” … . Here, since no party made such a request, the court erred in summarily disposing of the cause of action for a judgment declaring that Town of Lewisboro Code § 220-23(D)(7) is unconstitutional. Matter of Muller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro, 2021 NY Slip Op 01416, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

,

DESPITE A SMALL HOME OFFICE, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE LIABILITY EXEMPTION FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENCES IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should have been granted. The NYC Administrative Code exempts abutting owner-occupied residential properties from liability. The fact that defendant had a small office where he edited photos did not change the purely residential nature of the property:

In 2003, the New York City Council enacted section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York to shift tort liability for injuries resulting from defective sidewalks from the City to abutting property owners … . This liability shifting provision does not, however, apply to “one-, two- or three-family residential real property that is (i) in whole or in part, owner occupied, and (ii) used exclusively for residential purposes” … . “The purpose of the exception in the Code is to recognize the inappropriateness of exposing small-property owners in residence, who have limited resources, to exclusive liability with respect to sidewalk maintenance and repair” … .

Here, the appellant established, prima facie, that he was exempt from liability pursuant to the subject Code exception, and no triable issue of fact was raised in opposition. The appellant’s partial use of a room in his single-family home as an office to edit some photos in relation to his infrequent paid photography ventures was merely incidental to his residential use of the property … . The appellant was a retired photographer, and on occasion he would edit photos on his home computer in relation to two or three paid party photography jobs he did per year. The appellant did not claim a “home office” tax deduction, nor did he use this space in his home to edit these photos with any regularity. Zak v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 01287, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE UNKECHAUG INDIAN NATION TO EXCLUDE A MEMBER OF THE NATION FROM A PARCEL OF NATION LAND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a land-possession dispute within the Unkechaug Indian Nation. The Nation first sought a Supreme Court ruling on the rightful possessor of the land (claimed to be Curtis Treadwell), thereby waiving sovereign immunity on that issue. Then the Nation, pursuant to its own internal Tribal Rules, determined Danielle Treadwell, who occupied a portion of the land, was an “undisirable person” and, based on that finding, could no longer occupy the property. The Supreme Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the “undesirable person” action taken by the Nation:

… [B]y bringing the April 2018 determination that Curtis was the rightful possessor of the subject property before the state Supreme Court, and seeking a declaration and enforcement, the Nation waived its sovereign immunity, though only as to that determination and its enforcement … . Accordingly, so long as the Nation relied on the April 2018 determination as its basis for excluding Danielle from the disputed portion of the subject property, the defendants’ counterclaims seeking inverse declarations could proceed along with the Nation’s action for declaratory relief. However, once the Nation proceeded to take the undesirability vote in September 2019 and issue the tribal resolution and directives based upon the membership’s vote, the Nation, pursuant to its own Tribal Rules, created a new and independent basis, under its sovereign authority, for excluding Danielle from the disputed portion of the subject property. The Supreme Court properly recognized that once it was informed of the 2019 undesirability determination, it could not take any action with respect thereto, as this was a sovereign act of the Nation outside the court’s subject matter jurisdiction … . Unkechaug Indian Nation v Treadwell, 2021 NY Slip Op 01286, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE EASEMENT CREATED AN AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER THE EASEMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED TO ACCESS A PUBLIC ROAD; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the language in an easement indicating it is to be used for agricultural activities “and any use incidental thereto” did not support a finding, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the easement could be used to access a public road:

“Easements by express grant are construed to give effect to the parties’ intent, as manifested by the language of the grant” … . The extent of an easement claimed under a grant is generally limited by the language of the grant, as a grantor may create an extensive or a limited easement” … .

… [T]he plain meaning of the phrase “and any use incidental thereto” contemplates a use incidental to the agricultural activities on easement A, specifically, not agricultural activities outside of easement A. The record contains no evidence demonstrating that the grantor intended to allow the owner of lot 9 to enter easement A for a reason other than to engage in agricultural activities there, and thus, at the very least, there is an ambiguity as to whether [defendant] may use easement A solely as a thoroughfare, warranting denial of its motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) … . Strong Real Estate, LLC v 55 Town Line, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01280, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT AGENCY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY TO PLAINTIFF; HOWEVER IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AGENCY DID NOT HAVE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE POLICY; THEREFORE THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant WFG, a title insurance company, should not have been granted summary judgment on the “apparent authority” cause of action. WFG had terminated its agency relationship with NMR and had served a temporary restraining order on NMR prohibiting NMR from issuing any title insurance underwritten by WFG. The day after the restraining order was served, NMR issued a policy to plaintiff on property which turned out to have been encumbered with millions of dollars of liens. WFG was able to prove NMR did not have actual authority to issue the policy, but did not demonstrate NMR did not have apparent authority to issue the policy:

In the absence of actual authority, a principal may still be bound by the actions of a person who has apparent authority … . “Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to a third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority to enter into a transaction” … . The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact … . Failure to make such a showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers … .

Here, WFG failed to establish, prima facie, that NMR Realty lacked apparent authority to issue the policy. WFG merely pointed to gaps in the plaintiff’s proof, which was insufficient to meet its prima facie burden as the party moving for summary judgment … . Schwartz v WFG Natl. Tit. Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 01279, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defendants’ verdict in this slip and fall case, determined plaintiff’s expert should have been allowed to testify:

The plaintiff Wendy Robins (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) fell after stepping onto a curb adjacent to an unfinished driveway apron leading to an underground parking garage in a condominium building that was under construction … . …

“[E]xpert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror” … . The admissibility and scope of expert testimony is a determination within the discretion of the trial court … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding the testimony of the plaintiffs’ proposed expert witness as to industry safety standards relating to the construction of sidewalks … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the record shows no appreciable difference between the unfinished driveway apron where the injured plaintiff fell, which was left open to pedestrians, and the adjoining unfinished sidewalks, which were barricaded by a fence and barrels. Moreover, the absence of a violation of a specific code or ordinance is not dispositive of the plaintiffs’ allegations based on common-law negligence principles … . Had the plaintiffs’ expert been permitted to testify, he could have addressed whether, under the circumstances presented, the defendants’ failure to barricade the driveway apron or otherwise warn pedestrians of its unfinished condition was a departure from generally accepted customs and practices and whether the defendants were negligent in failing to do so … . Robins v City of Long Beach, 2021 NY Slip Op 01277, Second Dept 3-3-21​

 

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