You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENTS WERE DOCKETED, THE DEBTOR’S NAME WAS MISSPELLED RENDERING THE LIEN INVALID; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, THE APPELLATE COURT CAN CONSIDER AN ISSUE OF LAW WHICH COULD NOT BE AVOIDED IF IT HAD BEEN RAISED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judgment creditor, Fischer, was not entitled to priority over the respondent wife, Mayrav, who had been awarded real property owned with her husband, Julius, in divorce proceedings. Although Fisher’s judgments were docketed, Julius’s surname was spelled incorrectly, rendering the lien invalid. Although this issue had not been raised below, the appellate court can address it because it is a question of law which could not have been avoided if it had been raised:

“CPLR 5203(a) gives priority to a judgment creditor over subsequent transferees with regard to the debtor’s real property in a county where the judgment has been docketed with the clerk of that county” ( … see CPLR 5203[a]). Pursuant to CPLR 5018(c), a judgment is docketed when the clerk makes an entry “under the surname of the judgment debtor . . . consist[ing] of . . . the name and last known address of [the] judgment debtor” … . “A judgment is not docketed against any particular property, but solely against a name” … . ” Once docketed, a judgment becomes a lien on the real property of the debtor in that county'” … .

… [I]t is undisputed that when the judgments were docketed, Julius’s surname was spelled incorrectly. Because the judgments were not docketed under the correct surname, no valid lien against Julius’s interest in the subject property was created … . Therefore, Fischer was not entitled to a determination that his interest in the subject property was superior to that of Mayrav, whose interest “vest[ed] upon the judgment of divorce” … . Although Mayrav failed to argue in the Supreme Court that Fischer did not have a valid lien on the subject property in light of the undisputed fact that Julius’s surname was misspelled, that issue can be raised for the first time on appeal because it is one of law which appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if it had been raised at the proper juncture … . Accordingly, that branch of the petition which sought a determination that Fischer’s interest in the subject property was superior to that of Mayrav should have been denied. Matter of Fischer v Chabbott, 2019 NY Slip Op 09002, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

MOTHER ALLEGED SHE MADE PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES IN THIS SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING; FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO REIMBURSE MOTHER WITHOUT PROOF THE PAYMENTS WERE IN FACT MADE BY MOTHER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined, in this support proceeding, father’s objections should have been granted. Although mother alleged she made payments to third parties, she presented no proof of the payments. Therefore mother did not prove father owed those amounts to her:

At a support violation hearing, the petitioner has the initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence of nonpayment of child support … . Here, the father’s concession of failure to pay child support constituted prima facie evidence of a violation … . However, a party seeking reimbursement must show that he or she actually paid the sums for which reimbursement is sought  … . Since the amount of child support arrears awarded included amounts that the mother claimed to have paid to third parties, and the father did not concede those amounts, the mother was not entitled to a money judgment in the absence of proof that she paid the subject sums, which would demonstrate that the father was indebted to her for those expenses … . Matter of Barletta v Faden, 2019 NY Slip Op 08998, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENDANT WAS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING HE RESIDED AT AN ADDRESS DIFFERENT FROM THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was properly granted a second extension of time, in the interest of justice, to serve the summons and complaint. The court noted that defendant Ewing was estopped from contending his address was different from the address indicated in the Department of Motor Vehicles; (DMV’s) records:

Ewing maintains that he should have been served at an address which differed from the Strauss Street address listed on the police report, as well as the Atlantic Avenue address and the Georgia address. However, a search of the DMV records conducted on June 23, 2017, more than six weeks after the traverse hearing, reflected that the Atlantic Avenue address, where the plaintiff had attempted to effectuate service, was the current documented address for Ewing. Since the record demonstrates that Ewing failed to notify the DMV of his change of residence, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505(5), he was estopped from raising a claim of defective service … .

Furthermore, we note that “the more flexible interest of justice’ standard accommodates late service that might be due to mistake, confusion, or oversight, so long as there is no prejudice to the defendant” …  Here, the plaintiff demonstrated that there was no demonstrable prejudice to Ewing, particularly in light of evidence that he had actual notice of the action … . Indeed, the record indicates that Ewing served an answer to the complaint in April 2015, shortly after the expiration of the 120-day period for service … . Mighty v Deshommes, 2019 NY Slip Op 08996, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, ,

THE DEMAND FOR THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT UNDER A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF THE CONTRACT AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO KEEP THE DEPOSIT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant’s demand for the return of its deposit in a real estate transaction was an anticipatory breach of the purchase agreement entitling plaintiff to retain the deposit as liquidated damages. Plaintiff, Lamarche Food, had represented that it was a New York corporation authorized to do business in New York. The corporation had been dissolved in 1992. For that reason defendant claimed plaintiff had breached the contract and demanded the return of the deposit. However, pursuant to Business Corporation Law 1006, a dissolved corporation may continue to function for the purpose of winding up affairs. Apparently defendant acknowledged the “winding up affairs” issue and argued only that its demand for a return of the deposit was not an anticipatory breach:

By letter dated June 23, 2017, a new attorney for the defendant informed the plaintiffs’ attorney that Lamarche Food had defaulted on its obligations under the contract of sale inasmuch as it had represented therein that it was a New York corporation authorized to carry on its business in New York, with all the power and authority to enter into and perform the contract, and yet Lamarche Food was dissolved on June 24, 1992, and, therefore, was not a registered corporation in New York capable of engaging in new business. The defendant’s attorney further stated that in light of the breach, the defendant demanded a refund of its deposit within 10 days. * * *

On appeal, the defendant does not dispute that Lamarche Food could continue to function for the purpose of selling the subject property as part of its winding up of the corporation’s affairs. Rather, the defendant contends that its June 23, 2017, letter to the plaintiffs’ attorney did not constitute an anticipatory breach of the contract of sale. “An anticipatory breach of contract by a promisor is a repudiation of [a] contractual duty before the time fixed in the contract for . . . performance has arrived” … . “For an anticipatory repudiation to be deemed to have occurred, the expression of intent not to perform by the repudiator must be positive and unequivocal'” … . We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the June 23, 2017, letter reflected a positive and unequivocal repudiation of the contract by the defendant … , thereby, under the terms of the contract, entitling the plaintiffs to retain the deposit as liquidated damages for the defendant’s anticipatory breach. Lamarche Food Prods. Corp. v 438 Union, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08995, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, ,

COURT-APPROVED CUSTODY AND PARENTAL ACCESS STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED WITHOUT A HEARING; UPON REMITTAL AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD SHOULD BE APPOINTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have modified a court-approved stipulation relating to custody and parental access without a hearing. And the Second Department ordered that an attorney for the child be appointed upon remittal:

“Modification of a court-approved stipulation setting forth terms of custody or [parental access] is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the best interests and welfare of the child” … . The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances  … . “Where . . . facts essential to the best interests analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a hearing is required” … .

In view of the parties’ disputed factual allegations in this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to modify the stipulation of custody so as to award him final decision-making authority with respect to the child without a hearing to determine whether an award of final decision-making authority to the plaintiff was in the best interests of the child … . Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the interests of the child should be independently represented … . Walter v Walter, 2019 NY Slip Op 09056, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

DOG OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the dog owners’ (Hoffmans’) motion for summary judgment in this dog-bite case should not have been granted. However the landlord’s and property manager’s motions for summary judgment were properly granted because they demonstrated no knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities.  Plaintiffs’ child was bitten when visiting the Hoffmans’ apartment:

The sole means of recovery of damages for injuries caused by a dog bite or attack is upon a theory of strict liability, whereby “a plaintiff must establish that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities” … . “Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation” … . “Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” … .

The record shows, inter alia, that prior to this incident, the dog was often restrained within the Hoffman defendants’ apartment, particularly when visitors were present, but also, while only family members were present. By itself, the fact that a dog has been customarily confined cannot serve as the predicate for liability where “[t]here [is] no evidence that [the dog] was confined because the owners feared [it] would do any harm to their visitors” …  Here, however, the record contains evidence that the Hoffman defendants attempted to limit interaction between the dog and visitors. The record shows that [Hoffman’s child] attempted to secure the dog prior to letting [plaintiff’s child] into the apartment on the date of the incident. The record also shows that the Hoffman defendants acquired the dog partly to provide “security” for the family.

In addition, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovants … , the record shows that approximately two months prior to the incident, this dog allegedly attempted to bite the plaintiff, tearing his pants leg. Further, the evidence of the “intensity and ferocity” of the attack tends to establish the Hoffman defendants’ knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities … . King v Hoffman, 2019 NY Slip Op 08994, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 DID NOT APPLY AND DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 did not apply and did not demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action. The bank did not show that the underlying loan was not a “home loan,” and the proof of mailing of the notice was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show, prima facie, that the RPAPL 1304 90-day notice requirement was inapplicable because the loan was not a “home loan” … .​

RPAPL 1304 requires the 90-day notice to be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower (see RPAPL 1304[2]). “By requiring the lender or mortgage loan servicer to send the RPAPL 1304 notice by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail, the Legislature implicitly provided the means for the plaintiff to demonstrate its compliance with the statute, i.e., by proof of the requisite mailing, which can be established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure'” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to provide proof of the actual mailing, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by an individual with personal knowledge of that procedure. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Sadique, 2019 NY Slip Op 09054, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

,

THE INSURER IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT MEET ITS HEAVY BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE ITS INSURED’S NON-COOPERATION SUCH THAT THE INSURER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant insurer, Utica. did not meet its heavy burden to demonstrate its insured’s (J & R’s) non-cooperation such that the insurer was entitled to a default judgment declaring that it is not obligated to indemnify J & R in the underlying personal injury action in which the injured plaintiff was awarded nearly $700,000. Despite numerous scheduled depositions, J & R’s principal, Singh, never appeared to be deposed and his answer was ultimately stricken:

“To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction” … . ” [M]ere efforts by the insurer and mere inaction on the part of the insured, without more, are insufficient to establish non-cooperation'” … .

Here, Utica failed to meet its “heavy” burden of demonstrating J & R’s non-cooperatin … . In support of its motion, Utica established that between January 2009 and April 2009, more than one year before J & R’s answer was stricken, it made diligent efforts, through written correspondence, numerous telephone calls, and visits to Singh’s home, that were reasonably calculated to bring about J & R’s cooperation. Utica’s submissions, however, failed to demonstrate that the conduct of J & R constituted “willful and avowed obstruction” … . Foddrell v Utica First Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 08991, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

,

THE CRITERIA FOR PRE-ANSWER DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT BASED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint alleging the breach of a letter of intent (LOI) should not have been granted. The evidence submitted by the defendant was not “documentary” evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211 and the defendant did not demonstrate the complaint should be dismissed in the interest of judicial economy:

… [T]he emails and the unsigned documents relied on by the Supreme Court to conclude that the LOI was an unenforceable agreement to agree were not essentially undeniable, and did not constitute documentary evidence … . Furthermore, the LOI itself contained all the essential elements of a lease, including the area to be leased, the duration of the lease, and the price to be paid … . Moreover, nothing in the LOI stated that it was not binding, and its language did not conclusively establish that the parties did not intend to be bound by it … . Accordingly, the court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint.

… A court is permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and then the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not simply whether a cause of action is stated … . Unless the defendant can demonstrate that there is no factual issue as claimed by the plaintiff, the motion to dismiss should be denied … . Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate that there was no factual issue regarding whether the LOI can be construed as a binding contract. Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) should have been denied. S & J Serv. Ctr., Inc. v Commerce Commercial Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 09049, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ASSAULTED BY ANOTHER PATIENT IN DEFENDANT LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY; THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE ASSAILANT, WHO WAS NOT A PARTY, WERE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE; THE INCIDENT REPORTS PERTAINING TO THE ASSAULT WERE NOT SHOWN BY THE DEFENDANT TO BE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND WERE THEREFORE DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the assailant’s medical records were privileged, but any incident reports pertaining to the assault were not. Plaintiff alleged she was attacked while a long-term resident of defendant long-term health care facility. The assailant in this third-party assault action was not made a party:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which sought disclosure of the assailant’s admission chart. The assailant is not a party to the action, his medical records were subject to the physician-patient privilege, and he has not waived that privilege … .

However, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which sought disclosure of all incident reports related to the assault. Pursuant to Education Law § 6527(3), certain documents generated in connection with the “performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function,” or which are “required by the Department of Health pursuant to Public Health Law § 2805-l,” are generally not discoverable … . The defendant, as the party seeking to invoke the privilege, has the burden of demonstrating that the documents sought were prepared in accordance with the relevant statutes … . Here, the defendant merely asserted that a privilege applied to the requested documents without making any showing as to why the privilege attached. Accordingly, the incident reports related to the assault were subject to disclosure. DeLeon v Nassau Health Care Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08989, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

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