You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL WAIVED ANY LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATEMENT IN THE NOTICE THAT JURISDICTIONAL DEFENSES WERE NOT WAIVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ counsel had waived any lack of personal jurisdiction in this foreclosure action by filing a notice of appearance, notwithstanding the statement in the notice that jurisdictional defenses were not waived:

” The filing of a notice of appearance in an action by a party’s counsel serves as a waiver of any objection to personal jurisdiction in the absence of either the service of an answer which raises a jurisdictional objection, or a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction'” … .

Here, the defendants’ counsel filed a notice of appearance dated February 25, 2015, and the defendants did not move to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction at that time, or assert lack of personal jurisdiction in a responsive pleading … . It is immaterial that the notice of appearance, in addition to requesting that all papers in the action be served on the defendants’ counsel, stated that “[t]he Defendants do not waive any jurisdictional defenses by reason of the within appearance.” This language is not a talisman to protect the defendants from their failure to take timely and appropriate action to preserve their defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendants did not move to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction until January 2016, more than 10 months after filing the notice of appearance. Under these circumstances, the defendants waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them in this action. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Jacobowitz, 2019 NY Slip Op 07773, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements and did not demonstrate standing:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a representative of its loan servicer. The affidavit was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the representative did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which sent the notice, and provided no independent proof of the actual mailing … . Since 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 someone with personal knowledge of the procedure, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . …

… [T]he plaintiff appended a copy of the note to the complaint, but the plaintiff is not the original lender, and the note was not endorsed. In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted an allonge bearing an undated endorsement in blank, as well as the affidavit of a representative of the loan servicer, dated March 31, 2016, who stated that the plaintiff was in possession of the note, but who did not attest that the plaintiff possessed the note prior to the commencement of the action, or that she had personal knowledge of such possession. The plaintiff’s submissions therefore failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time of commencement of this action in March 2015 … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Ettinger, 2019 NY Slip Op 07759, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

,

SUPREME COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO DIRECT DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE BECAUSE A 90-DAY NOTICE HAD NOT BEEN SERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should not have been dismissed for failure to prosecute because a 90-day notice had not been served:

In April 2009, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant Melchior Sansone (hereinafter the defendant), among others, to foreclose a mortgage secured by certain real property located in Suffolk County. In January 2011, following settlement conferences, the action was released from the foreclosure settlement conference part without any resolution. On July 20, 2012, the parties appeared at a compliance conference, at which time the Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to resume the prosecution of this action. By order dated November 21, 2012 (hereinafter the dismissal order), the court directed dismissal of the action upon the plaintiff’s failure to resume prosecution of the action. The plaintiff subsequently moved to vacate the dismissal order, and, in effect, to restore the action to the active calendar. By order dated July 30, 2018, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

“A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the statutory preconditions to dismissal, as articulated in CPLR 3216, are met” … . These conditions include, among others, service of a written demand “requiring the party against whom such relief is sought to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within ninety days after receipt of such demand” (CPLR 3216[b][3] …). Here, the Supreme Court was without power to direct dismissal of the action on the ground of failure to prosecute because the plaintiff was not served with a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Sansone, 2019 NY Slip Op 07807, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 or with the notice provisions of the mortgage:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened … . Nor did [plaintiff’s employee] attest that she had personal knowledge of the mailing practices of her employer at the time the RPAPL 1304 notices allegedly were sent. Accordingly, “[s]ince 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 someone with personal knowledge of the procedure, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304” … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, that a notice of default in accordance with section 22 of the mortgage was properly transmitted to the defendants prior to the commencement of this action. [Plaintiff’s employee’s] unsubstantiated and conclusory statements that a representative … mailed such notice “[i]n accordance with the provisions of the Mortgage” to the defendants at their last known address at least 30 days prior to commencement of the action, even combined with copies of the notices of default and envelopes, with no evidence as to the date the envelopes were sent, “failed to establish that the required notice was mailed to the defendant[s] by first-class mail or actually delivered to [their] notice address’ if sent by other means, as required by the mortgage agreement” … . U.S. Bank N.A. v defendants., 2019 NY Slip Op 07806, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, , ,

THE ESTATE OF A JOINT TENANT WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED UPON DEATH, THE ESTATE’S MOTION TO INTERVENE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the estate’s motion to intervene in a foreclosure proceeding was properly denied. When Sydney Burt, a joint tenant with right of survivorship, died, his interest in the property subject to the foreclosure action passed to the joint tenant, Karyn Berkley, and not to Sydney’s estate. Therefore the estate did not have the right to intervene in the foreclosure:

… [T]he issue of whether the proposed intervenor was a necessary party in the action was determined on the merits by the Supreme Court in its order … , wherein it denied the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint for failure to join the proposed intervenor. Thus, the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of whether the proposed intervenor was a necessary party. … [W]e agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny intervention. New York defines a joint tenancy as “an estate held by two or more persons jointly, with equal rights to share in its enjoyment during their lives, and creating in each joint tenant a right of survivorship” … . “The right of survivorship has been defined as a right of automatic inheritance’ where, upon the death of one joint tenant, the property does not pass through the rules of intestate succession, but is automatically inherited by the remaining tenant” … . Therefore, when one joint tenant dies, the other joint tenants automatically inherit the property. This is in marked contrast to tenancies in common which allow a decedent’s share of property to pass under the rules of inheritance … . Thus, here, upon the Sydney Burt’s death, his interest in the property did not pass to his estate, the proposed intervenor; rather, it automatically passed to the remaining joint tenants, the defendant and Berkley. Therefore, the proposed intervenor was not a necessary party and did not have the right to intervene in the foreclosure action. PHH Mtge. Corp. v Burt, 2019 NY Slip Op 07802, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

,

ALLEGATION THAT FIREFIGHTERS TOLD PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS EXTINGUISHED AND IT WAS SAFE TO REENTER WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FIREFIGHTERS TURNED OFF THE WATER AND LEFT, AFTER WHICH THE BUILDING BURNED TO THE GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint sufficiently alleged the formation of a special relationship with plaintiffs by the Fire District of New York (FDNY):

When they arrived, FDNY personnel observed a fire on storage shelves approximately 50 feet into the building. Upon concluding that the fire was being controlled by the building’s sprinkler system, FDNY personnel wet down the debris, then turned off the main water valve that controlled the flow of water to the entire sprinkler system, rendering it inoperable. After certifying to warehouse personnel that the building was safe to re-enter, FDNY personnel left the premises. Within minutes, a warehouse employee observed an orange glow toward the center of the warehouse, and a second fire alarm was activated at 6:32 a.m. However, because the sprinkler system had been disabled by FDNY personnel, the fire spread quickly and destroyed the entire building and its contents. * * *

A municipality may not be held liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function, such as police and fire protection, absent a duty born of a special relationship between the injured plaintiff and the defendant municipality … . A special relationship may arise in three situations: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of person; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when it assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant, and dangerous safety violation … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ allegations that FDNY personnel, upon arriving at the scene and assuming control over the ongoing fire, shut off the main water supply valve to the warehouse’s sprinkler systems, then certified to warehouse employees that it was safe to reenter the building when in fact the fire was still at risk of rekindling—which it did within minutes after FDNY personnel left the premises—are sufficient to establish a special relationship … . Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07640, Second Dept 10-23-10

 

,

DEFENDANTS PRESENTED EVIDENCE THE BANK ACCEPTED PAYMENTS IN LESS THAN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT AFTER THE ALLEGED DEFAULT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 because defendants presented evidence the bank had accepted payments after the alleged default:

… [T]he defendants presented evidence demonstrating that, subsequent to their alleged default in September 2008, the plaintiff accepted mortgage payments in a lesser amount than originally required, which raises triable issues of fact as to whether the parties entered into a modification agreement subsequent to the defendants’ alleged default in September 2008, and whether there was a continuing default by the defendants from 2008 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v McEntee, 2019 NY Slip Op 07636, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

THE COMPLAINT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS BASED UPON A THEORY NOT DESCRIBED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint in this slip and fall case was properly dismissed. The complaint alleged a theory of liability which was not described in the notice of claim:

“A notice of claim which, inter alia, sufficiently identifies the claimant, states the nature of the claim and describes the time when, the place where, and the manner in which the claim arose, is a condition precedent to asserting a tort claim against a municipality” … . Although “the statute does not require those things to be stated with literal nicety or exactness'” … , a notice of claim must provide ” information sufficient to enable the city to investigate'” … and “must at least adequately apprise the defendant that the claimant would seek to impose liability under a cognizable theory of recovery” … . A plaintiff may not later add a new theory of liability that was not included in the notice of claim … .

Here, the City established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by submitting evidence that the notice of claim contained no allegation that the City caused or created the icy condition where the accident occurred by negligently maintaining a nearby sewer and failing to repair an alleged “recurring flooding condition from the sewer backup” … . Rubenstein v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07633, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

, ,

PROOF OF AN UNCHARGED SEXUAL OFFENSE RELIED UPON FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS INSUFFICIENT; LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT REDUCED TO LEVEL TWO (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reduced the defendant’s sex offender level from three to two because the evidence of an uncharged sexual offense was not sufficient:

… [A]lthough the defendant’s presumptive risk level was level two, the People contended that an upward departure was warranted based upon evidence that, approximately three months before the charged crime was committed, the defendant committed an uncharged sex offense against a different victim who allegedly was 15 years old at the time. While the People presented DNA evidence establishing that the defendant had sexual contact with the second alleged victim, the only evidence of that alleged victim’s age was a statement in a police report that she was 15 years old, and, since the police report stated that the alleged victim’s sexual contact with the defendant was willing, the bare notation of the victim’s age was the only proof of the crime on which the People relied. Thus, the Supreme Court should not have granted an upward departure since the evidence of the alleged victim’s age was not supported by a “detailed victim statement[ ]” … or otherwise corroborated … . People v Torres, 2019 NY Slip Op 07629, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IMPROPERLY ADDRESSED TO CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, WHO ARE NOT POLICE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS POLICES OFFICERS, AND THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED BY BOTH POLICE OFFICERS AND CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; NEITHER THE SEARCH WARRANT NOR THE SEARCH WAS THEREBY RENDERED INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that corrections officers, who are not police officers, participated in the search of his property was properly denied:

The defendant is correct that the search warrant was improperly addressed to the Special Operations Group, since it includes members who are not police officers within the meaning of the statute (see CPL 690.25[1]; see also CPL 2.10[25]). However, “[s]earch warrants should be tested in a commonsense and realistic manner with minor omissions and inaccuracies not affecting an otherwise valid warrant” … . Indeed, the fact that a search warrant is partially but not wholly invalid does not necessarily require suppression of the evidence that was recovered pursuant to such a warrant . Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the search warrant here was … otherwise properly addressed to sworn police officers in conformity with CPL 690.25(1), the additional inclusion of the members of the Special Operation Group who were not police officers was “analogous to a clerical omission which did not invalidate the warrant” … .

Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the participation by members of the Special Operations Group in the execution of the search warrant did not invalidate the search or otherwise require suppression of the physical evidence at issue. Although the Criminal Procedure Law only authorizes “[a] police officer” to execute a search warrant … , the participation by an individual who does not meet this statutory definition “is not inherently improper”… . Indeed, courts have upheld the validity of a search where civilians participated in the execution of a search warrant … . Under such circumstances, “civilians who act at the behest of the State are treated as police agents, subject to the same controls and restrictions of the Fourth Amendment as the police themselves” … . People v Ward, 2019 NY Slip Op 07624, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

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