You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

A TAX FORECLOSURE SALE OF THE SERVIENT ESTATE SUBSEQUENT TO THE PLAINTIFFS’ PURCHASE OF TITLE INSURANCE WAS NOT A TITLE DEFECT WHICH ENTITLED THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO DENY PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM, THE CLAIM STEMMED FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE ACROSS AN EASEMENT ON THE SERVIENT ESTATE WHICH WAS THE ONLY ACCESS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant title insurance company should not have been granted summary judgment supporting its denial of plaintiffs’ title insurance claim.  A fence had been constructed across an easement on the servient estate which blocked plaintiffs’ access to their property. Years after the title insurance was purchased and before the fence was constructed, the servient was the subject of a tax foreclosure and sale. The Second Department held that the tax sale was not a title defect which justified, as a matter of law, denial of the claim by the title insurance company:

… [P]laintiffs purchased a policy of title insurance from the defendant Old Republic National Title Insurance Company (hereinafter Old Republic), dated January 17, 2007. The policy specifically insured against losses or damages sustained as a result of the plaintiffs’ “[l]ack of a right of access to and from the land.” The policy excluded from coverage “[d]efects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters . . . attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy.” …

Contrary to Old Republic’s contention, if the plaintiffs acquired a valid easement appurtenant from [plaintiffs’ predecessors in title] in 2007, such easement would not have been extinguished by the 2013 tax sale … . Thus, Old Republic’s contention that the 2013 tax sale constituted a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter “attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy” within the meaning of the relevant policy exclusion is without merit, and cannot serve to establish Old Republic’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Buroker v Phillips, 2019 NY Slip Op 01386, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DIDN’T REACH THE LIABILITY ISSUE, THE MERITS WERE LITIGATED AND BRIEFED ALLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision traffic accident case, noting that the plaintiff no longer has to demonstrate freedom from comparative fault to warrant a judgment on liability. Supreme Court had not reached the liability issue and the Second Department did so because the merits were litigated and briefed:

… [T]he plaintiff testified at her deposition that her vehicle was stopped at a red light when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle. This testimony established, prima facie, that the defendant driver’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident … . Moreover, although the plaintiff also submitted a transcript of the defendant driver’s deposition testimony, that testimony does not present a triable issue of fact. The defendant driver testified that before the accident occurred, the light turned green, and the plaintiff began to slowly move forward. The defendant driver began to accelerate, then he saw the plaintiff’s brake lights go on. He testified that he “hit the brakes and hit her.” In essence, his testimony amounted to a claim that the plaintiff’s vehicle came to a sudden stop which, standing alone, was insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of the defendants’ vehicle … . Buchanan v Keller, 2019 NY Slip Op 01385, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

 

, ,

COVENANT TO BUILD A WALKWAY LINKING PARTS OF A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY RAN WITH THE LAND AND WAS THEREFORE ENFORCEABLE BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AGAINST A SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff homeowners association (HOA) was entitled to enforce an agreement made with the prior owners of the residential community to construct a walkway linking the newly constructed area to the existing areas of the community. The walkway covenant was deemed to run with the land:

As stated by the Court of Appeals, “[i]n Neponsit [Neponsit Prop. Owners’ Assn. v Emigrant Indus. Sav. Bank, 278 NY 248] we articulated three conditions . . . that must be met in order for a covenant to run with the land: (1) it must appear that grantor and grantee intended that the covenant should run with the land; (2) it must appear that the covenant is one touching or concerning the land with which it runs; [and] (3) it must appear that there is privity of estate between the promisee or party claiming the benefit of the covenant and the right to enforce it, and the promisor or party who rests under the burden of the covenant” … . …

The contract entered into in 2000, and the 2002 Amendment, as well as the circumstances of the transaction, demonstrate that the grantor and grantee intended that the walkway covenant should run with the land, thus satisfying the first Neponsit condition … . Indeed, the walkway covenant was expressly deemed an “inducement” for the HOA to sell the property … . …

The second Neponsit condition, that the walkway covenant touches and concerns the land, is easily met here, since the walkway covenant requires construction of a walkway linking the property with the Bay Street Landing community, and construction of common amenities. Thus, it “directly affects the uses to which the land may be put and substantially affects its value” … .

The third Neponsit condition is satisfied by the undisputed facts establishing the requisite privity  … . Bay St. Landing Homeowners Assn., Inc. v Meadow Partners, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01384, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

, ,

BANK’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE WHICH MET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE AND MAILING CRITERIA REQUIRED THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s evidence in this foreclosure action did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule and therefore the bank’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted in this foreclosure action. The court further held that defendant’s motion for summary judgment based upon the bank’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, an issue that can be raised at any time, should have been granted:

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records Wallace relied upon were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]). Wallace did not attest to personal knowledge of SLS’s record-keeping business practices and procedures  … . Wallace also failed to attest that the records were made in the regular course of SLS’s business and that it was the regular course of SLS’s business to make them, at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence, or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Thus, Wallace failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records, and her assertions based on these records were inadmissible … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Weber, 2019 NY Slip Op 01383, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

DEBTOR’S LAWSUIT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LISTED AS AN ASSET IN THE BANKRUPTCY FILINGS, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOMMENCE THE SUIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the bankruptcy trustee could take advantage of CPLR 205 (a) to recommence a lawsuit within six months of the dismissal. The timely filed action was dismissed because the debtor did not list the suit as an asset in the bankruptcy filings:

… [D]ismissal of the 2013 action was not based upon a voluntary discontinuance, lack of personal jurisdiction, neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment on the merits (see CPLR 205[a]). … CPLR 205(a) is applicable even though the 2013 action was dismissed based on the debtor’s incapacity to sue. The extension provisions of CPLR 205(a) are available to a plaintiff who seeks to recommence an action, notwithstanding that the prior action upon which the plaintiff relies was “invalid” in the sense that it contained a fatal defect … .

Although, as a general matter, only the plaintiff in the original action is entitled to the benefits of CPLR 205(a), the Court of Appeals has nevertheless recognized an exception to this general rule under certain circumstances where the plaintiff in the new action is seeking to enforce “the rights of the plaintiff in the original action” … . The Court of Appeals also has stated that the statute’s ” broad and liberal purpose is not to be frittered away by any narrow construction'” … . In this case, the plaintiff, the debtor’s bankruptcy trustee, seeks to recommence a personal injury action as the debtor’s successor-in-interest. As the debtor’s successor-in-interest, the plaintiff has the capacity to commence this action to recover damages for the debtor’s alleged personal injuries … . Consequently, the plaintiff is not seeking to enforce any rights separate and independent from those asserted by the debtor in the prior action … . Goodman v Skanska USA Civ., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01394, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION THE MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH PROOF MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff mortgage company did not demonstrate standing with proof meeting the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Melissa Black, an employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, who alleged, based upon a review of business records maintained by the loan servicer, that the plaintiff had been “in continuous possession of the note and mortgage since June 26, 2007.” However, because Black did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Black were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a] … ). In any event, the submissions by the plaintiff of different copies of the note raise a triable issue of fact, inter alia, as to whether the note was assigned to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action … . EMC Mtge. Corp. v Tinari, 2019 NY Slip Op 01392, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

, ,

CITY, AS THE OWNER OF THE MARINA WITH RIPARIAN RIGHTS, WAS ENTITLED TO EJECT DEFENDANTS WHO WERE USING AN INOPERABLE VESSEL AS A HOUSEBOAT DOCKED AT THE MARINA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the city should have been granted summary judgment in this ejectment proceeding. The defendants were using an inoperable vessel as a houseboat docked at a city marina:

To demonstrate entitlement to judgment on a cause of action for ejectment, a plaintiff must establish “(1) it is the owner of an estate in tangible real property, (2) with a present or immediate right to possession thereof, and (3) the defendant is in present possession of the estate” … . “The owner of uplands on a tidal, navigable waterway possesses riparian rights” which include the right to build a pier, dock, or wharf … .

Here, the City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to its first cause of action, for ejectment, by demonstrating that it is the owner of the subject slip … , with a present or immediate right to possession thereof … , and that the defendants are in possession of that property. City of New York v Anton, 2019 NY Slip Op 01389, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY, AND THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this slip and fall case was entitled to severance of the action against the property owner, Pathmark (supermarket), which filed for bankruptcy, from the action against the snow removal contractor, Peterman:

The supermarket defendants filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief, resulting in an automatic stay pursuant to 11 USC § 362(a). However, the automatic stay provisions of 11 USC § 362(a) did not extend to the nonbankrupt Peterman … . “Generally, the balance of the equities lies with plaintiff[ ] when severance is sought because the case against one defendant is stayed pursuant to 11 USC § 362(a), and that is particularly so in this personal injury action where a delay would be prejudicial to the plaintiff[ ]” … .

The supermarket defendants are subject to a $750,000 self-insured retention, which would make a lifting of the bankruptcy stay less likely. As the prejudice to the plaintiff in being required to await the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceeding before obtaining any remedy outweighs any potential inconvenience to Peterman, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 603 to sever the action insofar as asserted against the supermarket defendants from the action insofar as asserted against Peterman … . Vogric v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01447, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

, ,

PROOF OF MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT MET, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient proof of compliance with the notice requirements in Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Sherry Benight, an officer of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (hereinafter SPS), stating that her review of records maintained by SPS revealed that a “[ninety-day pre-foreclosure notice] dated September 13, 2012, . . . was sent to Borrower(s) by certified and first class mail.” A copy of the notice to Fisher was annexed to Benight’s affidavit, which contained a bar code with a 20-digit number below it, but no language indicating that a mailing was done by first-class or certified mail, or even that a mailing was done by the U.S. Postal Service … . Further, Benight did not make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Fisher, 2019 NY Slip Op 01444, Second Dept 2-27-19

Similar issues and result in US Bank N.A. v Rode, 2019 NY Slip Op 01446, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SOLE SHAREHOLDER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION AGAINST HIM PREMISED UPON PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE VIOLATED AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS STRIPPED OF ASSETS SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendant Brookstein, the sole shareholder of corporate defendant DKM, was not entitled to summary judgment in the action against him based upon piercing the corporate veil:

“The general rule, of course, is that a corporation exists independently of its owners, who are not personally liable for its obligations, and that individuals may incorporate for the express purpose of limiting their liability… . The concept of piercing the corporate veil is an exception to this general rule, permitting, in certain circumstances, the imposition of personal liability on owners for the obligations of their corporation … . A plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must demonstrate that a court in equity should intervene because the owners of the corporation exercised complete domination over [the corporation] in the transaction at issue and, in doing so, abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form, thereby perpetrating a wrong that resulted in injury to the plaintiff … .

A plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil bears a heavy burden… . “Veil-piercing is a fact-laden claim that is not well suited for summary judgment resolution” … .

Here, Brookstein did not establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. It is undisputed that Brookstein dissolved DKM without making any reserves for contingent liabilities, despite the existence of a provision in the contract of sale pursuant to which DKM agreed to indemnify [plaintiff] for any breach of warranty for a period of 7½ years after the closing of the sale. This factor was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Brookstein stripped the corporation of assets, leaving DKM without sufficient funds to pay its contractual contingent liabilities … . Town-Line Car Wash, Inc. v Don’s Kleen Mach. Kar Wash, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01443, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

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