You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

STRIKING THE COMPLAINT WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS; $2500 PENALTY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined sanctions were in order for plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery demands, but striking the complaint was too severe. A monetary penalty was imposed:

… [T]he plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery demands and orders directing discovery or respond to the letters from the defendants’ counsel concerning discovery, without providing a reasonable excuse, supports an inference of willful or contumacious conduct … . However, under the circumstances, the sanction imposed was too drastic a remedy and the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint should have been granted only to the extent of directing the plaintiff’s counsel to personally pay the sum of $2,500 as a sanction to the defendants … . Mirabile v Kuwayama, 2024 NY Slip Op 04958, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: This case presents another instance of an appellate court’s determination the striking of a pleading as a sanction is too severe a penalty. Here plaintiff failed to respond to discovery demands and a $2500 penalty was deemed an appropriate sanction by the Second Department.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, THE SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF PLAINTFF STUDENT BY TWO TEACHERS; THE FREQUENCY OF THE ALLEGED ABUSE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT NOTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the school defendants did not eliminate questions of fact about constructive notice of the sexual abuse of plaintiff student by two teachers. The relevant law is described in detail and should be consulted as a complete overview of the relevant issues:

… [T]o the extent the complaint is premised on the conduct of the music teacher, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the music teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . The defendants’ own submissions established that the plaintiff testified that the alleged abuse by the music teacher occurred once or twice a week during the school year … . In light of the frequency of the alleged abuse, the defendants did not eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether they should have known of the alleged abuse … . Additionally, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether their supervision of the music teacher or the plaintiff was not negligent … .

Although the single incidence of alleged sexual abuse by the English teacher occurred off of school property and outside of school hours, the defendants’ own submissions demonstrate that the music teacher introduced the plaintiff to the English teacher, describing the plaintiff as his “friend” and a “good girl,” and that, in the presence of the music teacher, the English teacher made arrangements with the plaintiff during school hours and on school grounds to meet after school when the alleged abuse by the English teacher took place … . C. M. v West Babylon Union Free Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 04954, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: Here the frequency of the alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff student by a teacher raised a question of fact about constructive notice by the school defendants.

 

, ,

ONCE AGAIN THE FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT CAREFULLY EXPLAINED ALL THE FLAWS IN THE PROOF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof requirements for sending the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure to the defendants were not met. This frequently recurring error was carefully explained by the Second Department, perhaps in an effort to instruct the bar:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affidavit of Kimberly Dutchess, an authorized representative of M & T Bank (hereinafter M & T), the plaintiff’s loan servicer and attorney-in-fact, along with a power of attorney authorizing M & T to act on the plaintiff’s behalf … . Although Dutchess laid a proper foundation for the admission of various business records annexed to her affidavit, inter alia, by attesting to her “familiar[ity] with business records maintained by M & T for the purpose of servicing mortgage loans,” she “failed . . . to attest that [s]he personally mailed the subject notices or that [s]he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of [M & T]” at the time the notices were sent … . Nor was Dutchess’s assertion that she “acquired personal knowledge of the matters stated in [her] affidavit by examining the [relevant] business records” sufficient to demonstrate her personal knowledge of M & T’s mailing procedures, since “a review of records maintained in the normal course of business does not vest an affiant with personal knowledge” … . Therefore, Dutchess “failed to establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … .

Moreover, although Dutchess’s affidavit laid a proper foundation for the admission of the business records annexed thereto, the content of those records did not demonstrate, prima facie, the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . The only purported proof of first-class mailing attached to Dutchess’s affidavit was a letter log, which “failed to establish that the 90-day notice was actually mailed to both of the defendants . . . by first-class mail” … . Among other issues, the letter log did not contain any information regarding the method of mailing for any of the documents contained therein. It also contained only one entry for the 90-day notice allegedly mailed to both of the defendants in February 2018, notwithstanding that a “plaintiff must separately mail a 90-day notice to each borrower as a condition precedent to commencing the foreclosure action” … . Furthermore, although the letter log listed Alexander W. Swanson III as the borrower, it did not mention Nancy L. Swanson’s name, and the plaintiff did not provide any records showing that the 90-day notice was mailed to Nancy L. Swanson by first-class mail … . Notably, “[i]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . In any event, even if Dutchess had established that she had personal knowledge of M & T’s mailing procedures, her affidavit did not sufficiently clarify any of these issues … . Since the plaintiff did not demonstrate that it mailed the 90-day notices to both of the defendants by first-class mail, it failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v Swanson, 2024 NY Slip Op 04952, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: It is not easy to prove compliance with the foreclosure notice requirements in RPAPL 1304 by affidavit. The same flaws in the proof have been the basis for foreclosure reversals for a decade now.​

 

, ,

THE APPLICATION TO TREAT THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM (NOI) AS A TIMELY FILED CLAIM IN THIS PRISON STABBING CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the notice of intention to file a claim (NOI) in this negligent supervision case met the requirements of a claim. Therefore the application to treat the NOI as a timely filed claim should have been granted. Claimant, a prison inmate, was stabbed in the eye:

Court of Claims Act § 10(8)(a) provides that a court may grant an application to treat an NOI as a claim if, among other things, the NOI “was timely served, and contains facts sufficient to constitute a claim; and the granting of the application would not prejudice the defendant.” Court of Claims Act § 11(b) requires a claim to specify: (1) the nature of the claim; (2) the time when it arose; (3) the place where the claim arose; (4) the items of damage or injuries claimed; and (5) the total sum claimed … . While section 11(b) does not require “absolute exactness,” the “guiding principle informing” section 11(b) pleading requirements is whether the State is “able to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances” … . “In describing the general nature of the claim, . . . or a notice of intention to file a claim, . . . [it] ‘should provide an indication of the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the State was negligent, or enough information so that how the State was negligent can be reasonably inferred'” … .

Here … the claimant provided sufficient details to meet the requirements outlined in Court of Claims Act § 11(b), including the nature of the claim and the alleged act of negligence by the State … . Johnson v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 04949, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: Where a notice of intention to file a claim (NOI) includes sufficient information about the nature of the claim and the alleged negligence by the state, an application to treat the NOI as a timely filed claim should be granted.

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HIS “BRAKES FAILED” WAS DEEMED SELF-SERVING AND INADMISSIBLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s failure to offer a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision warranted the award of summary judgment to plaintiff. The statement attributed to defendant in a certified police report claiming his “brakes failed” was deemed self-serving and inadmissible:

… [T]he plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting their respective affidavits, which demonstrated, inter alia, that the plaintiffs’ vehicle was traveling at a constant speed of 35 miles per hour in the right lane for at least one minute when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . The plaintiffs also established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the defendants’ first affirmative defense, alleging comparative negligence, by demonstrating that they were not comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident … . Barr v Canales, 2024 NY Slip Op 04944, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s statement that his “brakes failed” was deemed self-serving and inadmissible in this rear-end collision case.

 

,

THE FACT THAT A MORTGAGE IS MERELY INSURED BY HUD OR THE FHA DOES NOT MAKE THE BANK WHICH HOLDS THE MORTGAGE AN ASSIGNEE OF A FEDERAL AGENCY SUCH THAT NEW YORK’S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY; A BANK IS NOT AN ASSIGNEE OF HUD OR THE FHA IF IT WAS NOT ASSIGNED THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE THE INSURED MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, determined New York’s six-year statute of limitations applied to the foreclosure of a mortgage insured by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The bank argued that, as an assignee of a federal agency, it is immune from New York’s statute of limitations:

“‘There is no federal statute of limitations applicable to mortgage foreclosure actions brought by the United States or its federal agencies'” … . “That rule applies equally to an assignee of a federal agency, including a commercial lender, and includes the benefit of immunity from a state limitations period” … . * * *

The relevant distinction in this case is that between a loan that was merely insured by a federal agency and a loan that was held by a federal agency, such that the federal agency had a right to foreclose the mortgage, and then assigned to the plaintiff. A plaintiff seeking to foreclose a mortgage that was merely insured by a federal agency is not entitled to immunity. Allowing immunity in such instances would inappropriately expand its application and would be inconsistent with the purpose of “allow[ing] the government to maintain belated actions to enforce public rights,” where the government never had the ability to maintain such an action … . * * *

Although [the] evidence demonstrated that the loan at issue was insured by HUD and/or the FHA, the plaintiff failed to establish that either of those agencies ever had the right to foreclose the mortgage “unfettered by [the] statute of limitations” or that such a right was ever assigned to the plaintiff … . … [T]he plaintiff was not an assignee of a federal agency merely because the loan was insured by federal agencies. Bank of Am., N.A. v Reid, 2024 NY Slip Op 04942, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: An assignee of a federal agency is immune from New York’s statute of limitations. Here the bank which held the mortgage which was insured by HUD was not an assignee of the federal agency (HUD) because it was not assigned the authority to foreclose the insured mortgage.​

 

,

​ THE EXISTENCE OF A WRITTEN CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO SALES AND MARKETING DID NOT, PURSUANT TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE, PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES RELATING TO THE FORMATION AND OWNERSHIP OF A BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the counterclaim for breach of an oral contract should not have been dismissed. The court explained when the parol evidence rule does not exclude evidence of an oral contract. Here there was a written consulting agreement for defendant’s marketing and sales services. The alleged oral agreement related to the formation and ownership of a company (ION):

… ” … [A] written agreement does not exclude proof of a parol collateral agreement made even between the same parties, where the written contract is not intended to embody the whole agreement and does not on its face purport to cover completely the subject-matter of the alleged collateral agreement” … . For a prior oral agreement to be enforceable, “(1) the agreement must in form be a collateral one; (2) it must not contradict express or implied provisions of the written contract; (3) it must be one that parties would not ordinarily be expected to embody in the writing; or put in another way, an inspection of the written contract, read in the light of surrounding circumstances must not indicate that the writing appears to contain the engagements of the parties, and to define the object and measure the extent of such engagement. Or again, it must not be so clearly connected with the principal transaction as to be part and parcel of it” … .

Here, the consulting agreement did not completely cover the same subject matter as the alleged oral agreement, as the alleged oral agreement related to the formation and ownership of ION and the consulting agreement only related to the compensation that Ovadia [defendant] would receive for performing certain marketing and sales services … . Further, the alleged oral agreement did not vary, alter, or supplement any terms of the consulting agreement, which did not address ownership interests in ION … . Moreover, it would not ordinarily be expected that the subject matter of the alleged oral agreement would be addressed in the consulting agreement … . Parizat v Meron, 2024 NY Slip Op 04776, Second Dept 10-2-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the application of the parol evidence rule. Here evidence of an alleged oral contract between the parties was not precluded by the existence of a written consulting agreement because the two agreements covered different subjects and the terms did not conflict.

 

,

A DEFENDANT, AS PART OF A NEGOTIATED PLEA AGREEMENT, MAY WAIVE A HEARING SEEKING A REDUCED SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dowling, affirming defendant’s sentence after a guilty plea, determined that a hearing pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) seeking a reduced sentence can be waived. Therefore defendant’s negotiated plea agreement, which required her waiver of a DVSLA hearing, was valid:

… Penal Law § 60.12 contains no language requiring a sentencing court to hold a DVSJA hearing in every case containing allegations that the defendant is a victim of domestic violence, regardless of whether a hearing was requested, prior to announcing sentence. A defendant wishing to avail himself or herself of the possibility of a reduced sentence must instead request a DVSJA hearing to determine his or her eligibility before the sentencing court … . Where a DVSJA hearing is held, Penal Law § 60.12 provides that the court “may” apply the alternative sentencing scheme if the stated factors are established by the defendant. This permissive language reflects the Legislature’s intent that sentencing under Penal Law § 60.12 be an option exercised in the sentencing court’s discretion … . People v Hudson, 2024 NY Slip Op 04571, Second Dept 9-25-24

Practice Point: As part of a negotiated plea agreement, a defendant may waive a DVSJA reduced-sentence-eligibility hearing.

 

,

A PRIVILEGE LOG WHICH IDENTIFIES WITHHELD DOCUMENTS BY CATEGORY INSTEAD OF INDIVIDUALLY VIOLATES CPLR 3122 (B) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not comply with the privilege-log requirements of CPLR 3122(b). The defendants did not identify each withheld document individually, instead identifying only categories of documents:

Pursuant to CPLR 3122(b), “[w]henever a person is required . . . to produce documents for inspection, and where such person withholds one or more documents that appear to be within the category of the documents required . . . to be produced, such person shall give notice to the party seeking the production and inspection of the documents that one or more such documents are being withheld. This notice shall indicate the legal ground for withholding each such document, and shall provide the following information as to each such document, unless the party withholding the document states that divulgence of such information would cause disclosure of the allegedly privileged information: (1) the type of document; (2) the general subject matter of the document; (3) the date of the document; and (4) such other information as is sufficient to identify the document.”

Here, the defendants did not comply with the requirements of CPLR 3122(b), as their privilege log failed to individually identify each type of document being withheld, the general subject matter of each document, and the date of each document … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court (22 NYCRR 202.70 [g]) rule 11-b(b) does not authorize the defendants’ unilateral use of categorical designations in their privilege log, absent an agreement by the parties to employ a categorical approach or the issuance of a protective order … . Joseph v Rassi, 2024 NY Slip Op 04548, Second Dept 9-25-24

Practice Point: Absent an agreement or a court order, a privilege log which identifies withheld documents by category rather than individually violates CPLR 3122 (b).

 

, ,

THE SHORTER LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WAS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE; THE MOTION TO DISMISS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in the fire-insurance breach of contract case, determined the contractual limitations period in the insurance policy was not fair and reasonable:

“Article 2 of the CPLR (‘Limitations of Time’), provides that ‘[a]n action . . . must be commenced within the time specified in this article unless . . . a shorter time is prescribed by written agreement'” … . “‘[A]n agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to commence an action is enforceable'” … . “‘[T]he period of time within which an action must be brought . . . should be fair and reasonable, in view of the circumstances of each particular case. . . . The circumstances, not the time, must be the determining factor'” … . “‘Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced'” … .

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the modified limitations period in the subject insurance policy was not fair and reasonable. The insurance policy provided that “[n]o action can be brought unless the policy provisions have been complied with and the action is started within one year after the date of loss” and that “[w]e will pay no more than the actual cash value of the damage until actual repair or replacement is complete. Once actual repair or replacement is complete, we will settle the loss.” Here, the one-year limitation was unreasonable since the condition precedent, completion of actual repair or replacement, was not within the plaintiffs’ control and could not be met within that period … . “‘A “limitation period” that expires before suit can be brought is not really a limitation period at all, but simply a nullification of the claim'” … . Filasky v Andover Cos., 2024 NY Slip Op 04545, Second Dept 9-25-25

Practice Point: Parties can agree on shorter limitations periods. Here the limitations period in the subject fire insurance policy expired before suit could be brought rendering it unfair, unreasonable and unenforceable.

 

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