You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THE ENTIRE DEBT TIME-BARRED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED; IF SO, ONLY THOSE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS DUE WITHIN SIX YEARS OF THE START OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION ARE RECOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action on the entire debt was time-barred, but there was a question of fact whether the debt was de-accelerated such that the installment payments due during the six years prior to the commencement of the action were recoverable by the plaintiff bank (Chase):

… [T]he defendants demonstrated that the six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[4]) began to run on July 7, 2009, when Chase accelerated the mortgage debt and commenced the prior foreclosure action … . Since the plaintiff did not commence the instant foreclosure action until more than six years later, on January 28, 2016, the defendants sustained their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the action was untimely … .

… [T]he plaintiff tendered evidence that, in May 2015, it sent letters to each of the defendants that purported to de-accelerate the entire debt … . However, such evidence is sufficient only to raise a question of fact as to whether those causes of action that sought unpaid installments which accrued within the six-year period of limitations preceding the commencement of this action (see CPLR 213[4] …) are barred by the statute of limitations due to this alleged de-acceleration by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff failed to tender any evidence to rebut the defendants’ showing that the statute of limitations bars the causes of action relating to unpaid mortgage installments which accrued on or before January 27, 2010, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss those causes of action. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Miele, 2020 NY Slip Op 04422, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

, ,

THE SELLER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO EXERCISE AN OPTION IN THE RESTRICTED REMEDIES CLAUSE OF THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT BECAUSE THE BUYER NEVER DEMANDED SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, affirming Supreme Court and noting that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action may be brought at any time, determined the motion to dismiss this action for specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement was properly granted. The buyer argued it was entitled to specific performance because the seller was required to exercise one of the remedies described in the restricted remedies clause of the purchase agreement. The court disagreed and held the buyer never in fact demanded specific performance. Rather, the buyer indicated it would not close unless the seller remedied a tax misclassification and lowered the purchase price:

Supreme Court properly considered the seller’s post note of issue CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action because it can be made at any time (CPLR 3211[e]). Thus, CPLR 3212(a)’s requirement of demonstrating good cause for the delay does not apply … . * * *

… .[T]he buyer maintains that Supreme Court erred in dismissing that claim by misreading Mehlman v 592-600 Union Ave. Corp. (46 AD3d 338 [1st Dept 2007]) in applying the contract’s restricted remedy clause against it. That clause expressly and strictly limited the buyer to two remedies in the event the seller was unable to convey title to the premises pursuant to the terms of the contract: (i) terminate the contract and receive its down payment or (ii) consummate the transaction with a $25,000 credit to remedy any title issue. The buyer argues that our holdings in Mehlman and 101123 LLC v Solis Realty LLC (23 AD3d 107 [1st Dept 2005]) obligate the seller to concede the title defect and demand that the buyer exercise one of the options set forth in the restricted remedies clause at the closing, and that the seller’s failure to satisfy this obligation enables the buyer to maintain its specific performance claim. * * *

…  [A] seller unable to convey clear title for reasons contemplated in the parties’ contract is entitled to invoke the restricted remedies clause in response to a buyer’s demand for specific performance of the parties’ contractual terms. Here, the buyer’s allegations unmistakably demonstrate that it did not demand specific performance from the seller to convey title as alleged in the complaint, namely, by conveying title in accordance with the seller’s contractual representation that there were no negative tax issues associated with the premises. Instead, the buyer alleged in its complaint that it was ready, willing and able to close provided that the seller, inter alia, corrected the tax misclassification and reduced the purchase price to address the tax liabilities arising from the misclassification. In fact, the allegations underlying the claim demonstrate the complete absence of a demand for specific performance of the parties’ contract. Rather, according to those allegations, the buyer’s demand would result only if the seller did not comply with the buyer’s condition to close. These allegations, as a matter of law, demonstrate that the seller was not obligated to invoke the restricted remedies clause. Thus, under these circumstances, the buyer is precluded from seeking from the seller specific performance of their contract. M&E 73-75, LLC v 57 Fusion LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 04372, First Dept 7-30-20

 

, ,

RESTITUTION ORDERED WAS GREATER THAN THAT AGREED TO IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; RESTITUTION VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the restitution award in the interest of justice, determine the restitution ordered was not that agreed to in the plea agreement:

Defendant contends that Supreme Court improperly enhanced the sentence by ordering him to pay restitution in an amount greater than what was agreed to under the plea agreement. The record supports his claim, and the People concede that the restitution award should be reduced. Although defendant failed to preserve his claim by requesting a hearing or objecting to the amount of restitution at sentencing, we deem it appropriate to take corrective action in the interest of justice … . As defendant was not sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement, the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court to provide defendant with the opportunity to either accept the sentence with the enhanced restitution award or withdraw his guilty plea … . In addition, as Supreme Court failed to set forth the time and manner of payment of the amount of restitution in the restitution order, this omission must also be addressed upon remittal … . People v Gravell, 2020 NY Slip Op 04344, Third Dept 7-30-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice and wrongful death causes of action on behalf of decedent should not have been dismissed as time-barred:

The plaintiff’s decedent died due to complications related to cancer on August 29, 2015. On May 26, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for wrongful death and medical malpractice against, among others, the defendants Forest Hills Hospital (hereinafter FHH) and Sergio Martinez, a physician (hereinafter together the defendants). As is relevant to these appeals, the complaint alleged negligent acts and omissions by the defendants related to the decedent’s hospitalization at FHH from July 30, 2013, to August 1, 2013. After joinder of issue, Martinez and FHH separately moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss, as time-barred, so much of the complaint as was based upon alleged acts of malpractice committed before November 26, 2013, insofar as asserted against each of them. … Supreme Court granted the defendants’ separate motions. …

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the statute of limitations barred causes of action to recover damages for medical malpractice that accrued prior to November 26, 2013 (i.e., 2½ years before the date the action was commenced), rather than February 28, 2013 (i.e., 2½ years before the date of the decedent’s death) (see EPTL 5-4.1 …). Since, at the time of his death, the decedent had a valid cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice based upon acts or omissions occurring on or after February 28, 2013, and since the wrongful death cause of action was commenced within two years of the date of his death, the wrongful death cause of action was timely commenced … . Accordingly, any causes of action to recover damages for medical malpractice that accrued on or after February 28, 2013 (i.e., within 2½ years of the decedent’s death), including the decedent’s July 2013 hospitalization, were timely. Further, the plaintiff then had one year from the decedent’s death to assert a cause of action alleging conscious pain and suffering (see CPLR 210[a]; …). Perez v Baez, 2020 NY Slip Op 04329, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

HEARSAY DID NOT PROVE BANK HAD STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence submitted by plaintiff bank to establish standing in this foreclosure action was inadmissible hearsay:

“… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a foreclosure specialist for Seterus, Inc. (hereinafter Seterus), which purports to be a subservicer for the Federal National Mortgage Association as assignee of the plaintiff as assignee of OneWest. The affidavit constitutes inadmissible hearsay, as the foreclosure specialist did not attest that he had personal knowledge of OneWest’s business practices and procedures … , or that any records provided by OneWest were incorporated into Seterus’s own records … , and also did not submit any documents to show that OneWest possessed the note at the time of the commencement of this action (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Since the foreclosure specialist also failed to establish a foundation to show that he had personal knowledge as to whether OneWest possessed the note prior to commencement of the action (see CPLR 3212[b] …), the plaintiff failed to establish its standing. The documents attached to the affirmation of counsel for the plaintiff are inadmissible hearsay as counsel failed to establish a foundation for admission of such documents as business records and the foreclosure specialist’s affidavit does not reference the records attached to counsel’s affirmation … . Moreover, even if a proper foundation for the admissibility of the business records had been established, the submitted documents do not show that OneWest had ownership of and the right to enforce the note at the time of the commencement of the action … . The plaintiff also failed to show OneWest’s standing based upon a purported written assignment of the mortgage from MERS [Mortgage Electronic Registration system] to OneWest, as the plaintiff did not demonstrate that MERS had the authority to assign the note …”. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v Schacker, 2020 NY Slip Op 04313, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS DID NOT REBUT THE SWORN ALLEGATIONS OF PROPER SERVICE AND MAILING OF THE SUMMONS, COMPLAINT AND REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1303 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the foreclosure action on the ground defendants were never served should not have been granted:

… [T]he affidavit of service contained sworn allegations reciting that service was made upon Simone Cohen at 4:48 p.m. on March 3, 2009, by delivering to her the summons, complaint, and notice required by RPAPL 1303 at the subject property. The affidavit of service included a description of Simone Cohen. Another affidavit of service of the same process server contained sworn allegations reciting that service was made upon Avi Cohen by delivering a copy of the relevant papers to “SIMONE COHEN (WIFE),” a person of suitable age and discretion, at 4:48 p.m. on March 3, 2009, at the subject property, “[s]aid premises being the Defendant’s dwelling place within the State of New York,” and described Simone Cohen as above. The process server further averred that on March 4, 2009, he mailed those documents to Avi Cohen at the address of the subject property “by depositing a true copy of the same in a postpaid, properly addressed envelope in a[n] official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post office.” Two additional affidavits of service recited that on March 4, 2009, copies of the summons were mailed to each defendant at the subject property.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendants’ submissions failed to rebut the affidavit of service, since they stated only that Simone Cohen could not have been present at the time of the alleged service since she picked up her children from school every Tuesday and that she could not have understood or answered the process server’s questions or understood the import of the legal papers since she was not proficient in English. The defendants’ conclusory and unsubstantiated submissions did not rebut the sworn allegation that a person fitting the physical description of Simone Cohen was present at the residence at the time and accepted service … . Moreover, Avi Cohen did not deny that he received the papers in the mail and thus did not overcome the inference of proper mailing that arose from the affidavit of service … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Cohen, 2020 NY Slip Op 04312, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

ABSENT PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER ON FATHER OR FATHER’S COUNSEL, THE TIME FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER NEVER BEGAN RUNNING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the time for filing objections to the order of the Support Magistrate never started to run because there was no evidence the order was served or mailed, notwithstanding father’s possession of the order:

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 439(e), objections to an order of a Support Magistrate must be filed within 30 days after the date on which the order is provided to the objecting party in court or by personal service, or within 35 days after the date in which the order is mailed to the objecting party … . When a party is represented by counsel, the 35-day time requirement does not begin to run until the final order is mailed to counsel … . Here, the father and the father’s prior counsel indicated that neither of them received the Support Magistrate’s order by either personal service or mail. In addition, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the Support Magistrate’s order was mailed or personally served on the father’s counsel. Since there is no evidence in the record indicating that the Support Magistrate’s order was personally served or mailed to the father’s counsel … , the time in which the father was required to file his objections never began to run … . Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the father’s actual possession of the Support Magistrate’s order, which prior counsel indicated was obtained from the Family Court record room, is not dispositive, as the time limitations of Family Court Act § 439(e) do not begin to run until service is effectuated in accordance therewith … . Hughes v Lugo, 2020 NY Slip Op 04308, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

MOTHER, WHO OPPOSES VACCINATING THE CHILD, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED MEDICAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined mother, who opposes vaccination of the child, should not have been awarded medical decision-making authority:

Here, the child, by his attorney … , asserts that the mother should not have medical decision-making authority over him. The mother opposes vaccinating the child. However, at the hearing, the father testified that he would innoculate the child for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, and measles, mumps, and rubella, expressed concern that the child could become infected and young and elderly members of his family were at risk due to the child’s lack of immunization against “highly contagious preventable diseases,” and further noted that his younger child had received a “full set” of vaccinations. The forensic evaluator recommended that the father should be awarded medical decision-making authority due to his position on vaccinations which was safer for the child, a position which was entitled to some weight … . Under the circumstances, the determination of the Family Court to award the mother medical decision-making authority did not have a sound an substantial basis in the record, and the father should have been awarded medical decision-making authority … . Matter of Ednie v Haniquet, 2020 NY Slip Op 04305, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1180 (d) (SPEEDING) WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; THE POLICE OFFICER DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT ON A DIFFERENT DATE AT THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the administrative finding that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1180 (d) (speeding) was not supported by substantial evidence because the police officer described an incident on a different date at the hearing:

At the hearing, the police officer, who issued the summons to the petitioner, testified about events which occurred on March 18, 2016, which was not the date that the alleged offense occurred according to the summons issued to the petitioner. While the substantial evidence standard “demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable'” … , here, there was no testimony or evidence provided to demonstrate that the petitioner operated his vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) on March 8, 2016. Given the discrepancy between the date of the offense as set forth in the summons and the testimony of the officer, relying on his notes which also referred to March 18, 2016, the record does not demonstrate that the ALJ was presented with substantial evidence that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) on March 8, 2016 … . Matter of Batra v Egan, 2020 NY Slip Op 04300, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ICE FORMED AFTER A PRIOR STORM AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. Although there was a storm in progress at the time of the slip and fall, there were questions of fact whether ice had formed from a storm two days before and whether the defendants had constructive notice of the condition:

Under the storm in progress rule, “[a] property owner will not be held liable in negligence for a plaintiff’s injuries sustained as the result of an icy condition occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter” … . Here, in support of their summary judgment motion, the defendants submitted climatological data which showed that on January 26, 2015, trace amounts of snow fell in the morning, and that the snow began to increase in intensity at about the time of the accident and continued into the next day. That same data, however, also showed that 3.6 inches of snow fell on January 24, 2015, and that 2 inches of snow depth remained on January 26, 2015. Although the defendants established that a snowstorm was in progress at the time of the plaintiff’s fall, the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff’s fall was a result of an icy condition which developed as a result of the snowfall on January 26, and not that of January 24 … . Notably, while the defendants provided evidence of their general snow removal practices, they provided no evidence regarding any specific removal efforts following the January 24 storm, including on January 26 prior to the plaintiff’s fall. Thus, the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy condition that was a product of the storm in progress, or that they lacked constructive notice of a preexisting condition … . Kearse v 40 Wall St. Holdings Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 04296, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

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