You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED HOURS AWAY FROM HIS BROOKLYN ATTORNEY AND ATTEMPTS TO MOVE DEFENDANT TO NEW YORK CITY WERE UNSUCCESSFUL; UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS ATTORNEY BEFORE ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, considering the appeal in the interest of justice, determined defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. Defendant was housed far away from his Brooklyn attorney and the attempts to have him moved to New York City were ignored by the Department of Corrections. The Second Department held defendant had been deprived of his right to counsel:

Under the circumstances here, and particularly in view of the defendant’s substantiated and uncontradicted testimony that he was deprived of his constitutional right to consult with his attorney in advance of trial, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application pursuant to CPL 220.60(3) to withdraw his plea of guilty. Under the circumstances … we conclude that the interests of justice would have been better served had the defendant been permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty. * * *

This Court has recognized that “[s]imple justice . . . mandates that a plea must be knowingly and intelligently given and, if it be to any degree induced by fear or coercion, it will not be permitted to stand” … . People v Hollmond, 2020 NY Slip Op 07222, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

ASSAULT THIRD IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT SECOND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that assault third is an inclusory concurrent count of assault second:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of assault in the third degree must be vacated as an inclusory concurrent count of assault in the second degree (see CPL 300.40[3][b]; Penal Law §§ 120.05[2]; 120.00[1] …). People v Cullins, 2020 NY Slip Op 07219, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION’S JOINT REQUEST TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL EVALUATED; ONCE A DEFENDANT IS DEEMED COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, THE DECISION WHETHER TO PRESENT AN INSANITY DEFENSE IS THE DEFENDANT’S, NOT THE COURT’S, TO MAKE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the convictions, determined: (1) the trial judge should not have rejected the request by both defense counsel and the prosecutor to have the defendant’s mental health and fitness for trial evaluated; and (2) once a defendant is found competent to stand trial the decision whether to present an insanity defense is the defendant’s alone. Here defense counsel was ordered by the judge to present an insanity defense, over defendant’s objection:

… [W]hen confronted with evidence that the defendant was not taking his required medication and was not able to communicate rationally with his attorney, the Supreme Court should have granted the joint applications of the People and the defense to have the defendant examined pursuant to CPL 730.30(1) to determine his fitness to proceed … . …

… [A] defendant found competent to stand trial has the ultimate authority, even over counsel’s objection, to reject the use of a psychiatric defense … . Thus, once the Supreme Court determined the defendant to be competent to stand trial, it should not have interfered with that authority by “order[ing]” defense counsel, over the defendant’s objection, to present an insanity defense. People v Bellucci, 2020 NY Slip Op 07215, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NEVER ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, HE APPEARED BY MAKING A MOTION TO DISMISS AND PARTICIPATED IN THE LITIGATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE A NECESSARY PARTY OR THE FAILURE TO JOIN OR SUBSTITUTE A PARTY WAS NOT WARRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the default should have been granted. Although defendant did not submit an answer, he did move to dismiss the complaint, which extended his time to answer, and thereafter participated in the litigation. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground a necessary party was not included in the suit, and on the ground a party should have been substituted or joined:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate his default in answering the complaint. “CPLR 320(a) provides that a defendant may appear in an action in one of three ways: (1) by serving an answer, (2) by serving a notice of appearance, or (3) making a motion which has the effect of extending the time to answer” … . Here, the defendant appeared in the action in May 2008, when he, among others, moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, which extended his time to serve an answer (see CPLR 320[a]; 3211[f]). Although the defendant did not serve an answer to the complaint following the denial of his motion, the record demonstrates that the defendant actively participated in the litigation during the ensuing years and that the plaintiffs never moved for leave to enter a default judgment against him. …

“CPLR 1001(a) provides that ‘[p]ersons . . . who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action’ are necessary parties whose joinder is required” … . “‘When a person who should be joined under [CPLR 1001(a)] has not been made a party and is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall order him summoned'”…. . However, “[u]pon any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original parties unless the court directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted or joined in the action” (CPLR 1018). “The determination to substitute or join a party pursuant to CPLR 1018 is within the discretion of the trial court” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the plaintiffs to continue this action against the original defendants, despite any alleged changes to the composition of the purported board of trustees … over the course of this 16-year litigation, in order to avoid any further unnecessary delay … . Kelley v Garuda, 2020 NY Slip Op 07180, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DIRECTION TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT “ON NOTICE” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s foreclosure action, sua sponte, as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. Supreme Court, after plaintiff’s unopposed motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, directed the plaintiff to “submit judgment.” When plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment for signature, Supreme Court dismissed the action because the proposed judgment was not submitted within 60 days. The 60-day time limit only applies when a party is directed to submit the judgment “on notice:”

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48, an order or judgment which is directed to be settled or submitted on notice must be submitted for signature within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order or judgment be settled or submitted. A party who fails to submit the order or judgment within the 60-day time period will be deemed to have abandoned the action or motion, absent good cause shown … . In this case, when the Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, it did not direct that the proposed judgment had to be settled or submitted on notice. 22 NYCRR 202.48 does not apply where, as here, the court merely directs a party to submit an order or judgment without expressly directing that the order or judgment be submitted on notice … . James B. Nutter & Co. v McLaughlin, 2020 NY Slip Op 07178, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, , ,

THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; AN INDICTMENT RAISES ONLY A PRESUMPTION OF PROBABLE CAUSE WHICH CAN BE REBUTTED; A PROSECUTOR IS ENTITLED ONLY TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS AN INVESTIGATOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s malicious prosecution cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was arrested and indicted for sex trafficking, held in jail for 10 months, and then the charges were dropped. The court noted that the indictment raised only a presumption of probable cause which can be rebutted. The plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether the prosecution was motivated by malice. A prosecutor is entitled only to qualified immunity when acting as an investigator:

“The elements of the tort of malicious prosecution are: (1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice” … . Although a grand jury indictment raises a presumption of probable cause, this presumption may be rebutted … . “[E]ven if the jury at a trial could, or likely would, decline to draw inferences favorable to the plaintiff on issues of probable cause and malice, the court on a summary judgment motion must indulge all available inferences of the absence of probable cause and the existence of malice” … . …

“[A] prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken within the scope of his or her official duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the People’s case, but a prosecutor is entitled only to qualified immunity when acting in an investigatory capacity” … . Crooks v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 07161, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

,

THE PROPERTY OWNER SUED THE VILLAGE ALLEGING THE VILLAGE BREACHED A CONTRACT IN FAILING TO RE-ZONE THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT; A MUNICIPALITY DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER A CONTRACT WHICH CONTROLS ITS LEGISLATIVE POWERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the cause of action by plaintiff property owner alleging the defendant village breached a contract to rezone the property to allow development should have been dismissed. A municipality does not have the authority to make contracts which control legislative powers and duties:

Even were we to find that the stipulations contained a provision that required the Village Board to enact zoning, such a provision is unenforceable, as obligating the Village Board to enact certain zoning requiring a legislative act cannot be agreed to by stipulation. “While a municipality possesses the inherent right to compromise a claim against it, it may not, under the guise of a compromise, impair a public duty owed by it or give validity to a void claim. Municipal corporations have no power to make contracts which will embarrass or control them in the performance of their legislative powers and duties” … . Moreover, “[t]he term limits rule prohibits one municipal body from contractually binding its successors in areas relating to governance unless specifically authorized by statute or charter provisions to do so. Elected officials must be free to exercise legislative and governmental powers in accordance with their own discretion and ordinarily may not do so in a manner that limits the same discretionary right of their successors to exercise those powers” … . BT Holdings, LLC v Village of Chester, 2020 NY Slip Op 07157, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank (Wilmington) did not demonstrate defendants’ default in this foreclosure action and the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Wilmington failed to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as it failed to submit evidence demonstrating the defendants’ default in payment … . In support of the motion, Wilmington submitted … copies of the note and the mortgage, and the affidavit of Angela Farmer, a vice president of Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC (hereinafter Rushmore), the servicer of the loan. Based on her review of business records in the possession of Rushmore, including records created by Ditech [the original plaintiff, note was transferred to Wilmington], Farmer averred that the defendants defaulted in payment in June 2013. While Farmer established that she was familiar with Ditech’s recordkeeping practices and procedures, no payment records were proffered with the motion. The only business records annexed and incorporated in the affidavit with regard to the default were two notices of default both dated October 24, 2013 … . “‘[W]hile 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'” … . “[I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Wilmington Sav. Fund, FSB v Peters, 020 NY Slip Op 07248, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

,

THE BANK’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action and the bank’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

“Although the foundation for admission of a business record usually is provided by the testimony of the custodian, the author or some other witness familiar with the practices and procedures of the particular business, it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . “‘[E]vidence of the contents of business records is admissible only where the records themselves are introduced'” … . Without submission of the business records, a witness’s testimony as to the contents of the records is inadmissible hearsay (see CPLR 4518[a] … ). Here, Herberg’s [bank’s vice president’s] assertion, in effect, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note when it commenced the action appears to be based upon unproduced business records or upon confirmation of information from some other unproduced source, and is therefore not probative on the issue of the plaintiff’s standing … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Atedgi, 2020 NY Slip Op 07247, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, the notice of default requirements of the mortgage, and standing to bring the action. Evidence submitted in reply papers should not have been considered:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of DiMario Abrams, a vice president for the plaintiff’s loan servicer, as well as copies of the notices and the envelopes in which the notices were allegedly mailed. Abrams did not purport to have personal knowledge of the actual mailing of the notices pursuant to RPAPL 1304, he did not purport to have personal knowledge of the mailing procedures utilized by the plaintiff’s loan servicer, and he did not lay a proper foundation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule with respect to the notices and envelopes attached to his affidavit … . * * *

The plaintiff submitted a lost note affidavit prepared by Dereje D. Badada, a vice president for its loan servicer. According to that affidavit, the note had “been inadvertently lost, misplaced or destroyed,” and the loan servicer had “not pledged, assigned, transferred, hypothecated or otherwise disposed of the note.” There was no allegation in the lost note affidavit that the note had ever been delivered or assigned to the plaintiff, nor were there any details regarding when or how the note was lost, who searched for the note, or when they searched for the note. Therefore, the lost note affidavit did not establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the note or the facts preventing it from producing the note (see UCC 3-804 …). U.S. Bank N.A. v Kohanov, 2020 NY Slip Op 07242, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

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