You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

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

 

, , ,

MOTION TO DISMISS THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RULE OUT LIABILITY BASED UPON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND THE COMPANY PROVIDING SECURITY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant security company’s motion to dismiss the complaint should not have been granted in this third party assault case. The complaint alleged the security company’s negligence resulted in the murder of plaintiff’s decedent at an assisted living facility. The defendant alleged it did not provide security there at the time of the murder. However, the documentary evidence submitted by defendant did not rule out the possibility the defendant company could be liable based upon its relationship with the company which was providing security at the time of the murder:

Generally, “a corporation which acquires the assets of another is not liable for the torts of its predecessor”… . However, such liability may arise if the successor corporation expressly or impliedly assumed the predecessor’s tort liability, there was a consolidation or merger of seller and purchaser, the purchaser corporation was a mere continuation of the seller corporation, or the transaction was entered into fraudulently to escape such obligations… .

Moreover, “[w]here, as here, evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) . . . the motion should not be granted unless the movant can show that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it”… . ” Accordingly, consideration of such evidentiary materials will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) unless the materials establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no [claim or] cause of action'”… .

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the documentary and affidavit evidence submitted by USSA in support of its motion failed to conclusively establish that the plaintiff had no cause of action against it. More particularly, that evidence failed to demonstrate that the exceptions to the general rule of a successor corporation’s nonliability where there was a de facto merger between the purchaser and the seller, or where the purchaser is a mere continuation of the seller, do not apply to this case … . Shea v Salvation Army, 2019 NY Slip Op 01441, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO PERMISSIVE ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION BASED UPON THE PEOPLE’S LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the permissive adverse inference jury instruction should have been given because of the loss or destruction of evidence requested by the defendant:

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court should have granted his request for a permissive adverse inference charge with respect to the People’s failure to turn over duly requested tape recordings and any other police records related to taped interactions between the undercover officer and a witness to the March 4, 1998, sale, who was also the defendant’s unindicted co-defendant. ” A permissive adverse inference instruction typically serves as either: (1) a penalty for the government’s violation of its statutory and constitutional duties or its destruction of material evidence; or (2) an explanation of logical inferences that may be drawn regarding the government’s motives for failing to present certain evidence at trial'” …

We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court should have granted his request for a permissive adverse inference charge based upon the People’s loss or destruction of the material requested by the defendant … . “[A] permissive adverse inference charge should be given where a defendant, using reasonable diligence, has requested evidence reasonably likely to be material, and where that evidence has been destroyed by agents of the State”… . Although the prosecutor stated that the missing tapes were unrelated to the sales at issue and were not recorded on the dates of the buys, he concededly never listened to them. Additionally, the officer who relayed the information that the tapes were not recorded on the dates of the buys to the prosecutor did not testify at trial. People v Torres, 2019 NY Slip Op 01434, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

TRIAL COURT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT FINDING DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE LESSER COUNTS, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, noted that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that finding the defendant not guilty of the top count (attempted murder) based upon the justification defense would preclude consideration of the lesser counts. Defendant was acquitted of attempted murder but found guilty of assault first:

… [T]he Supreme Court’s jury charge in conjunction with the verdict sheet failed to adequately convey to the jury that if it found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder in the second degree based on justification, then “it should simply render a verdict of acquittal and cease deliberation, without regard to” assault in the first degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree … . Thus, the court’s instructions, together with the verdict sheet, may have led the jurors to conclude that deliberation on each of the three counts required reconsideration of the justification defense, even if they had already acquitted the defendant of attempted murder in the second degree based on justification … . Since we cannot say with any certainty and there is no way of knowing whether the acquittal on attempted murder in the second degree was based on a finding of justification, a new trial is necessary… . In light of the defendant’s acquittal on the charge of attempted murder in the second degree, the highest offense for which the defendant may be retried is assault in the first degree … . People v Rosario, 2019 NY Slip Op 01432, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny defendant youthful offender status:

The evidence demonstrated that the defendant, who was only 18 years old when he participated in the subject robbery and had spent nearly two years in pretrial detention prior to pleading guilty to robbery in the first degree, played a relatively minor role in the robbery, which, although serious, was orchestrated by his considerably older brother, who was a repeat offender. The defendant suffers from developmental delays. While the defendant did participate in the robbery, it was the defendant’s brother, not the defendant, who wielded a gun and committed a sexual assault against one of the victims. Additional mitigating circumstances include the defendant’s lack of a prior juvenile record, criminal record, or violent history, and his cooperation with the authorities as part of the plea deal. Moreover, the defendant either had graduated from high school or was on the cusp of graduating from high school. Under all the circumstances, the interest of justice would be served by “relieving the defendant from the onus of a criminal record” … . People v Sheldon O., 2019 NY Slip Op 01430, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER MAKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILDREN TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, IT WAS NOT IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS TO RETURN TO HONDURAS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should have issued an order making findings to allow the child to petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS):

… [B]ased upon our independent factual review, the record supports a finding that reunification of the children with their mother is not viable due to parental abandonment … . The children testified that the mother left when they were both only three years old, and that they have not seen or spoken to the mother since that time. Thus, the record establishes that the mother has had no involvement with the children for the majority of their lives … .

Further, the record supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the children to return to Honduras, their previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence … . Francis testified that when the children lived with their paternal aunt in Honduras, they were “mistreat[ed] . . . emotionally and physically.” The children testified that when they then went to live with their father and stepmother in Honduras, the stepmother beat them and “wouldn’t give us food” when the father was not around, and that the stepmother was “verbally abusive,” telling the children, among other things, that they were “good for nothing.” The record reflects that the children had no one else to take care of them if they returned to Honduras. Consequently, the record demonstrates that it would not be in the best interests of the children to return to Honduras … . Matter of Norma U. v Herman T. R.F., 2019 NY Slip Op 01421, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SUA SPONTE VACATE A CONSENT ORDER IN THIS SUPPORT PROCEEDING, VACATION OF THE CONSENT ORDER AND THE RESULTING COMMITMENT ORDER REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court did have the authority to issue a sua sponte order vacating a consent order:

Upon the father’s admission to a willful violation of the support order and upon the father’s representation that he was employed, an order of disposition was entered upon the parties’ consent, finding the father to be in willful violation of the support order and committing him to a term of incarceration of five months, but suspending his commitment on the condition that he complied with the support order (hereinafter the consent order). Shortly after the consent order was entered, the Family Court received a telephone call, ostensibly from the father’s purported employer, informing the court that the father was not, in fact, employed. The court, over the father’s objection, sua sponte issued an order vacating the consent order (hereinafter the sua sponte order). The court then proceeded to a willfulness hearing, at the conclusion of which it issued the second order of disposition, finding the father to be in willful violation of the support order and directing that he be committed to the Orange County Jail for a period of six months unless he paid the purge amount of $19,839 (hereinafter the commitment order). …

As the father correctly contends, the Family Court lacked authority to issue the sua sponte order vacating the consent order (see CPLR 5019[a]) …). Moreover, the court issued the sua sponte order on the basis of unsworn statements made during a telephone call between the court and the father’s purported employer … . Accordingly, the sua sponte order must be reversed, and the commitment order, which was based in part on the sua sponte order, must be reversed as well. Matter of Schiavone v Mannese, 2019 NY Slip Op 01419, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

ORDER MAKING THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CHILD ESCAPED EL SALVADOR BECAUSE OF GANG VIOLENCE AND THREATS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the father’s motion for an order making the findings necessary for the child to petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) should have been granted:

Based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record establishes that the child met the age and marital status requirements for special immigrant status … , and the dependency requirement has been satisfied by the granting of the father’s guardianship petition prior to the child’s 21st birthday … . Further, we find that reunification of the child with her mother is not a viable option due to parental abandonment … . The record reflects that after the child came to the United States in February 2014, she did not live with the mother because the “mother did not want to support her,” and that the child lived in close proximity to the mother, but the mother only visited the child once, in March 2014, and did not visit or even contact the child from that time through the time the father made the subject motion in April 2018. We also find that the record supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the child to return to El Salvador, her previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence. The record reflects that the child was threatened by gang members in El Salvador while walking home from school, that the gang members “wanted to recruit [the child] and have her sell drugs” and told her that “she had to join them or they would murder her and her family,” that the gang members started texting her to “extort money from her,” that the child was sent to live with a family friend, but the threats continued, and that the child left El Salvador to escape from the gangs … . Matter of Rina M. G.C. (Oscar L.G.–Ana M. C.H.), 2019 NY Slip Op 01407, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE DAMAGES AMOUNT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion to vacate the default in this dog-bite case should not have been granted because it was untimely and unsubstantiated, but a full evidentiary hearing was required to determine the appropriate amount of damages:

… [A] court has the “inherent power to set aside excessive awards made upon default,” despite the fact that there is no reasonable excuse for the default … . “An unwarranted and excessive award after inquest will not be sustained, as to do otherwise would be tantamount to granting the plaintiffs an “open season” at the expense of a defaulting defendant'”… . In light of the evidence in the record, including the plaintiff’s testimony at the inquest, which was not supported by any expert testimony, and a police report of the incident which stated that the plaintiff suffered “minor injuries from an animal bite,” there are significant questions as to whether the award of the principal sum of $500,000, consisting of $200,000 for past pain and suffering and $300,000 for future pain and suffering, was excessive. Thus, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to stay enforcement of the default judgment and the settlement agreements based upon that judgment, and to direct further discovery. However, the court also should have stated in its order dated September 21, 2016, that the issues to be determined on the motion to stay enforcement of the default judgment are limited to the issue of damages. Loeffler v Glasgow, 2019 NY Slip Op 01401, 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