You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

TOWN DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STRUCK BY A CAR CROSSING A STREET AFTER ATTENDING A TOWN FIREWORKS DISPLAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant town did not owe a duty to plaintiff who was struck by a car when crossing a county road after attending a town fireworks display:

On the evening of July 17, 2012, the infant plaintiffs attended a concert and fireworks show held by the Town of Oyster Bay in a Town park. The infant plaintiffs allegedly were injured when they were struck by a car while crossing Merrick Road in the Town, at a site where there was neither a crosswalk nor any traffic control devices. The infant plaintiffs and their father commenced this action to recover damages for the personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiffs and for loss of services on behalf of their father, against, among others, the Town. …

“In any negligence action, the threshold issue before the court is whether the defendant owed a legally recognized duty to the plaintiff” … . “The existence and scope of an alleged tortfeasor’s duty is, in the first instance, a legal question for determination by the courts” …  Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Town established, prima facie, that it owed no duty to the infant plaintiffs once they left Town property and decided to cross Merrick Road, which is owned by the County … . Janas v Town of Oyster Bay, 2018 NY Slip Op 06086, Second Dept 9-19-18

NEGLIGENCE (TOWN DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STRUCK BY A CAR CROSSING A STREET AFTER ATTENDING A TOWN FIREWORKS DISPLAY (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STRUCK BY A CAR CROSSING A STREET AFTER ATTENDING A TOWN FIREWORKS DISPLAY (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (TOWN DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STRUCK BY A CAR CROSSING A STREET AFTER ATTENDING A TOWN FIREWORKS DISPLAY (SECOND DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS  (TOWN DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STRUCK BY A CAR CROSSING A STREET AFTER ATTENDING A TOWN FIREWORKS DISPLAY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the law-office-failure offered as an excuse for failure to comply with a conditional order in this foreclosure action was not sufficient to justify vacating the dismissal of the action:

To vacate the dismissal, HSBC was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the noncompliance with the conditional order of dismissal and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216… ). Here, the proffered excuse of law office failure by prior counsel in failing to timely file a note of issue or move for entry of judgment was conclusory and wholly unsubstantiated (see CPLR 2005…). HSBC did not proffer an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge of the purported law office failure and failed to provide any details regarding such failure. Therefore, the allegation of law office failure did not rise to the level of a reasonable excuse … . Fremont Inv. & Loan v Fausta, 2018 NY Slip Op 06084, Second Dept 9-19-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3216 (CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2005 (CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE  (CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE DID NOT JUSTIFY VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined the detective's testimony that the complainant picked the defendant out of a lineup constituted inadmissible bolstering. The issue was reviewed in the interest of justice (error not preserved);

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from a detective stating that he arrested the defendant after the defendant was identified in a lineup by the complainant. However, we nevertheless review this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[6][a]…). The detective's testimony implicitly bolstered the complainant's testimony by providing official confirmation of the complainant's identification of the defendant … . A violation of the rule against bolstering may not be overlooked except where the evidence of identity is so strong that there is no serious issue upon that point … . Here, the evidence that the defendant committed the crime was not so overwhelming as to render the error harmless. This error was compounded by improper comments made during the People's summation regarding the complainant's identification of the defendant as the robber. People v Ramirez, 2018 NY Slip Op 06120, Second Dept 9-19-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/LINEUPS (CRIMINAL LAW, DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/BOLSTERING (CRIMINAL LAW, LINEUPS, DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, DETECTIVE'S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

STATEMENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF GAS LINES MADE BY DEFENDANT WHO WAS HIRED TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE GAS LEAKS PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants' motion for summary judgment in this defamation and injurious falsehood action should have been granted. The allegedly defamatory statements were made by defendant Dimino who was hired to assess the reasons for gas leaks at a school. The defendant concluded the gas leaks were the result of improper installation of the gas lines by plaintiff. Plaintiff was thereafter prohibited from doing any further school-related work for five years. The statements made about plaintiff's work were deemed protected by qualified common-interest privilege:

… [T]he defendants made a prima facie showing that the challenged statements were protected by the qualified common-interest privilege … . The evidence in the record demonstrated that the letter, which does not reference the plaintiff by name, was written by Dimino at the request of the DOE [Department of Education], and that the defendants did not identify the plumbing company that installed the gas piping at the school. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the challenged statements were motivated solely by malice … . ” Mere conclusory allegations, or charges based upon surmise, conjecture, and suspicion are insufficient to defeat the claim of qualified privilege'”… . Although the plaintiff disputes that its workmanship was poor and that it used lamp wick in the gas pipes at the school, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to support its claims that the defendants made the statements for the purposes of justifying the cost of their repair work and eliminating the plaintiff as a competitor.

For these same reasons, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging injurious falsehood. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants made false statements, maliciously and with the intent to harm it, or recklessly and without regard to their consequences … . In addition, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not tortiously interfere with the plaintiff's business relations. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Dimino made the alleged defamatory statements in the letter for the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff or by using unlawful means … . Franco Belli Plumbing & Heating & Sons, Inc. v Dimino, 2018 NY Slip Op 06083, Second Dept  9-19-18

DEFAMATION (STATEMENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF GAS LINES MADE BY DEFENDANT WHO WAS HIRED TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE GAS LEAKS PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, STATEMENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF GAS LINES MADE BY DEFENDANT WHO WAS HIRED TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE GAS LEAKS PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT))/QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, STATEMENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF GAS LINES MADE BY DEFENDANT WHO WAS HIRED TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE GAS LEAKS PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT))/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, STATEMENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF GAS LINES MADE BY DEFENDANT WHO WAS HIRED TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE GAS LEAKS PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT’S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant juvenile offender could not move to suppress his presentence report in subsequent Department of Homeland Security proceedings:

The defendant, an immigrant from Bangladesh, was adjudicated a youthful offender. After completing his sentence, the defendant was detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security (hereinafter the DHS), which, in reliance on the defendant's presentence report, argued that the defendant should be denied a bond due to his youthful offender adjudication. Thereafter, the defendant moved before the Supreme Court in the subject criminal proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3103 for a protective order “enjoining the [DHS's] use” of his presentence report, arguing that it is a confidential record under CPL 720.35(2), which the DHS had improperly obtained. In an order dated June 6, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. The defendant appeals.

CPLR 3103 ” confers broad discretion upon a court to fashion appropriate remedies' to prevent the abuse of disclosure devices” … . Pursuant to CPLR 3103(c), “[i]f any disclosure under this article has been improperly or irregularly obtained so that a substantial right of a party is prejudiced, the court, on motion, may make an appropriate order, including an order that the information be suppressed” … . Here, since the DHS did not obtain the presentence report in the course of any disclosure process under CPLR Article 31, there is no basis for the issuance of a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103(c). Moreover, since “[c]ontrol over immigration and naturalization is entrusted exclusively to the Federal Government, and a State has no power to interfere” … , the Supreme Court lacked the power to suppress the presentence report in immigration proceedings. People v Saqline K., 2018 NY Slip Op 06115, Second Dept 9-19-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (IMMIGRATION LAW, SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))CIVIL PROCEDURE (IMMIGRATION LAW, (SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))PRESENTENCE REPORT (IMMIGRATION LAW, SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT'S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))

DEFAULT NOTICE WAS NOT A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT START RUNNING FROM THE DATE OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined the language in a letter was not sufficient to trigger the acceleration of the debt, which, in turn, would have started the the running of the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action:

In June 2005, nonparty Cecilia Adebola executed a promissory note in the sum of $549,000 in favor of Fremont Investment & Loan [FBP] secured by a mortgage encumbering real property located in Brooklyn. After Adebola defaulted under the terms of the note and mortgage, the loan servicer sent her a notice of default dated July 3, 2006. The notice of default stated, in relevant part, that “[i]f the default is not cured on or before August 7, 2006, the mortgage payments will be accelerated with the full amount . . . becoming due and payable in full, and foreclosure proceedings will be initiated at that time.” * * *

Here, it is clear from the record that FBP cannot establish that the notice of default letter was a clear and unequivocal acceleration of the mortgage … . The notice of default “was nothing more than a letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, which does not constitute an exercise of the mortgage's optional acceleration clause” … . Fbp 250, LLC v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2018 NY Slip Op 06082, Second Dept 9-19-18

FORECLOSURE (DEFAULT NOTICE WAS NOT A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT START RUNNING FROM THE DATE OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT))/ACCELERATION OF MORTGAGE  (DEFAULT NOTICE WAS NOT A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT START RUNNING FROM THE DATE OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFF, A TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WAS WALKING IN THE STREET WHEN DEFENDANT STRUCK HIM AFTER TAKING HIS EYES OFF THE ROAD, PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the pedestrian-vehicle accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff, a New York City Police Department traffic enforcement agent, was walking in the road when he was struck by defendant's vehicle. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should have been granted because plaintiff did not have demonstrate freedom from comparative fault:

On April 3, 2018, the Court of Appeals decided Rodriguez v City of New York (31 NY3d 312, 324-325), and held that “[t]o be entitled to partial summary judgment a plaintiff does not bear the double burden of establishing a prima facie case of defendant's liability and the absence of his or her own comparative fault” … . Reviewing the record in the context of this recent decision, we conclude that the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by the submission of deposition testimony which demonstrated that as the defendant driver was operating the vehicle, he took his eyes off the road and struck the plaintiff and a parked vehicle. The testimony further demonstrated that the defendant driver did not see the plaintiff prior to impact. Outar v Sumner, 2018 NY Slip Op 06103, Second Dept 9-19-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF, A TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WAS WALKING IN THE STREET WHEN DEFENDANT STRUCK HIM AFTER TAKING HIS EYES OFF THE ROAD, PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PLAINTIFF, A TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WAS WALKING IN THE STREET WHEN DEFENDANT STRUCK HIM AFTER TAKING HIS EYES OFF THE ROAD, PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF, A TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WAS WALKING IN THE STREET WHEN DEFENDANT STRUCK HIM AFTER TAKING HIS EYES OFF THE ROAD, PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/COMPARATIVE FAULT (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS, PLAINTIFF, A TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WAS WALKING IN THE STREET WHEN DEFENDANT STRUCK HIM AFTER TAKING HIS EYES OFF THE ROAD, PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, with a concurring memorandum, determined that defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized from his person and his statement should have been granted in this street stop case. The majority reversed under a DeBour analysis. The concurring memorandum, although agreeing with the DeBour analysis, would have reversed because the People did not demonstrate the legality of the police conduct at the suppression hearing:

This encounter began as a level two intrusion, with the officer, while seated in the vehicle, stating “police” and asking the defendant to stop, then exiting his vehicle, walking onto the sidewalk, again stating “police” and asking the defendant to stop. Thereafter, the officer's pursuit of the defendant, by getting “closer to the defendant picking up with his pace,” constituted a level three intrusion under De Bour, requiring a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in a felony or misdemeanor … . However, the circumstances, such as that the defendant had a nondescript bulge in his right jacket pocket, was leaning to the right side, and walked away from the officer without complying with the officer's requests for him to stop, did not support a reasonable suspicion of particularized criminal action. After all, “a bulging jacket pocket is hardly indicative of criminality. As [the Court of Appeals has] recognized, a pocket bulge, unlike a waistband bulge, could be caused by any number of innocuous objects'” (People v Holmes, 81 NY2d at 1058, quoting People v De Bour, 40 NY2d at 221), and “an individual has a right to be let alone' and refuse to respond to police inquiry” … . Since this level three intrusion was not justified, it cannot be validated by the officer's subsequent observation of the firearm … .

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's subsequent statement to law enforcement officers must be suppressed as the product of the unlawful police conduct … . People v Jones, 2018 NY Slip Op 06114, Second Dept 9-19-18

CRIMINAL LAW (STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE  (STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO   (STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/DE BOUR (STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a Cash Account Agreement memorializing a reverse mortgage was not a negotiable instrument within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code and plaintiff, therefore, did not have standing to foreclose after the borrower’s death:

… [T]o qualify as a negotiable instrument under the UCC, a document must “(a) be signed by the maker or drawer; and (b) contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money and no other promise, order, obligation or power given by the maker or drawer except as authorized by this Article; and (c) be payable on demand or at a definite time; and (d) be payable to order or to bearer” (UCC 3-104[1] …). * * *

… [T]he Cash Account Agreement is signed by the borrower and contains an unconditional promise to pay. In addition to this … the Cash Account Agreement also contains provisions that go well beyond what is permitted under the UCC. Most significantly, the Cash Account Agreement creates an open-end (i.e., revolving) line of credit upon which the borrower could draw a maximum of $806,152. Since the initial advance in this case was only $366,152, the borrower potentially could have drawn down as much as $440,000 more from the lender. Consistent with these terms, the borrower promised to pay when due “all amounts advanced” under the Cash Account Agreement. Although the plaintiff contends that such an agreement constitutes a negotiable instrument, we have found no New York case …directly on point. In other jurisdictions, however, similar line of credit agreements have been held to be distinct from an agreement to pay a sum certain … . …

Beyond this … the Cash Account Agreement also provides for the periodic adjustment of the advance limit, and allows the lender, inter alia, to suspend, terminate, or reduce the borrower’s right to obtain future advances under certain circumstances. …

On its face, the Cash Account Agreement does much more than memorialize the borrower’s unconditional promise to pay a sum of money. It creates a banking relationship between the lender and the borrower, provides terms and conditions under which the borrower may, from time to time, obtain additional cash advances from the lender, and even contains an arbitration clause. Although the Cash Account Agreement appears to have been signed only by the borrower, section 17.2 specifically acknowledges that it imposes obligations on both the borrower and the lender. The specific language of several provisions of the Cash Account Agreement, read in context of the agreement as a whole, provides compelling evidence that the Cash Account Agreement is not, and was never intended to be, a negotiable instrument … .

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot establish its standing merely by showing that it possessed the original Cash Account Agreement, indorsed in blank, on the date this action was commenced, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint should have been denied. OneWest Bank, N.A. v FMCDH Realty, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06101, Second Dept 9-19-18

FORECLOSURE (REVERSE MORTGAGE, A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT))/REVERSE MORTGAGE (A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, REVERSE MORTGAGE, A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT))/UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (FORECLOSURE, REVERSE MORTGAGE, A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT (FORECLOSURE, REVERSE MORTGAGE, A CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT WHICH MEMORIALIZED A REVERSE MORTGAGE WAS NOT A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THEREFORE THE HOLDER OF THE CASH ACCOUNT AGREEMENT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT STATING THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WITH NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department remitted the matter for consideration of defendant's pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. His attorney told the judge there was no basis for the motion which adversely affected defendant's right to counsel:

…[T]he defendant pleaded guilty to tampering with physical evidence. Thereafter, he moved pro se to withdraw his plea of guilty. When the matter came on for sentencing, the defendant advised the County Court that he wanted to withdraw his plea. His attorney stated that there was no basis for the defendant to withdraw his plea, and the court proceeded to impose sentence. The defendant's right to counsel was adversely affected when his attorney took a position adverse to that of the defendant. The court should have appointed new counsel to represent the defendant with respect to the motion to withdraw his plea of guilty … . People v Falls, 2018 NY Slip Op 06110, Second Dept 9-19-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT STATING THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WITH NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT STATING THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WITH NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL  (DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT STATING THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WITH NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))

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