You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Injunction Enforcing Restrictive Covenant Properly Granted Despite Substantial Construction In Violation of the Covenant

The Second Department determined plaintiff property owner was entitled to summary judgment in her action to enforce a restrictive covenant in a neighbor’s (Bryant’s) deed.  The restriction was a setback requirement which was violated.  Because plaintiff started her action early on, the fact that the neighbor’s house was substantially constructed did not matter.  The neighbor was on notice when the construction was done:

…[T]he restrictive covenant in Bryant’s deed was part of a common development scheme created for the benefit of all property owners within the subdivision. As such, the plaintiff has standing to enforce the restrictive covenant at issue … .

We … reject Bryant’s assertion that the Supreme Court erred in declining to dismiss the causes of action seeking injunctive relief on the ground that they had been rendered academic. As the plaintiff correctly argues, those causes of action were not rendered academic, despite the substantial completion of the home … . Under the circumstances, the plaintiff acted promptly in commencing this action and Bryant was put on notice that if she proceeded with construction, she would do so at her own risk … .

On the merits, we find that the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. The law has long favored free and unencumbered use of real property, and covenants restricting use are “strictly construed against those seeking to enforce them” … . “[C]ourts will enforce such restraints only where the party seeking enforcement establishes their application by clear and convincing evidence” … . Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the restrictive covenant was applicable and that Bryant’s construction violated that restrictive covenant insofar as the side setback distances were concerned. In opposition to this prima facie showing, Bryant failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .  Hildago v 4-34-68 Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03491, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

,

People Did Not Meet Their Burden of Demonstrating the Legality of the Police Action—Seized Handgun, Identification and Statement Properly Suppressed

The Second Department determined the People did not meet their burden of demonstrating the legality of the police action at the suppression hearing.  The handgun recovered from the defendant’s backpack was properly suppressed:

Where a defendant moves to suppress evidence, the People bear the initial burden of establishing the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, while the defendant bears the ultimate burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged evidence should not be used against him or her … . Based on the record before it, the Supreme Court properly suppressed the handgun seized from the backpack in the defendant’s possession, since the People failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the legality of the police conduct. Although the police officers properly initiated a common-law inquiry to obtain explanatory information from a group of six men, which included the defendant, based upon information from an anonymous informant …, reasonable suspicion justifying an intrusive search of the backpack in the defendant’s possession never arose … . Accordingly, the police search of the backpack was improper, requiring suppression of the handgun recovered from the backpack. Additionally, suppression of identification evidence and a statement made by the defendant to law enforcement officials was also required, as such evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree … . People v Nichols, 2014 NY Slip Op 03541, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

Unrecorded Purchase Money Mortgage Did Not Have Priority Over Mortgage Recorded by Good-Faith Lender for Value

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action concerning whether plaintiff’s purchase money mortgage had priority over the recorded mortgage held by defendant bank.  Plaintiff’s mortgage was not recorded:

Pursuant to “New York’s Recording Act (Real Property Law § 291), a mortgage loses its priority to a subsequent mortgage where the subsequent mortgagee is a good-faith lender for value, and records its mortgage first without actual or constructive knowledge of the prior mortgage” … . Further, the plaintiff’s purchase money mortgage “is as much subject to the Recording Act as any other” … .

The amended complaint failed to allege that [defendants] had constructive or actual notice of the plaintiff’s purchase money mortgage, that either made any representation to the plaintiff, or otherwise acted in bad faith. Thus, the plaintiff may only establish that the purchase money mortgage had priority over [defendant’s] mortgage on the basis that it was recorded first. However, the amended complaint averred that the purchase money mortgage was not recorded, and further stated that [defendant] holds a first Mortgage to the property.” Carrion v 162 Pulaski LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03470, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

Judge Properly Refused to Accept Defendant’s Plea to a Lesser Offense Because the Prosecutor Objected to the Plea Allocution as Insufficient

The Second Department determined the judge properly refused to accept defendant’s plea to a lesser offense when the prosecutor objected to the plea colloquy as insufficient:

“Since, in effect, permission to enter a lesser plea is a matter of grace, reasonable conditions may be attached thereto. What is reasonable is generally a question of fact attendant upon the circumstances” … . “A District Attorney may dictate the terms under which he [or she] will agree to consent to accept a guilty plea and where his terms are not met, he [or she] may withhold such consent; the withholding of such consent by statutory mandate renders the court without authority to accept a plea to anything less than the entire indictment” … . Here, in view of the prosecutor’s objections to the plea allocution, the court did not err in refusing to accept the plea … . People v Swails, 2014 NY Slip Op 03545, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

,

Tenants Not Compelled to Bring a Plenary Action to Enforce a Fair Market Rent Appeal Award Because They Withheld Rent Until the Principal Balance of the Award Was Fully Credited to Them—Therefore Tenants Were Not Entitled to Prejudgment Interest Pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a)

The Second Department determined tenants who had been awarded a rent refund in a fair market rent appeal (FMRA) were not entitled to pre-judgment interest on the award.  The tenants had exercised their right under the Rent Stabilization Code to withhold rent until the principal balance of the FMRA award was fully credited.  Therefore, the tenants did not need to start a plenary action for prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) because there was no principal balance owing them:

“A tenant compelled to bring a plenary action to enforce a fair market rent appeal order is entitled to . . . prejudgment interest under CPLR 5001(a) computed from the date of the Rent Administrator’s order … ” … . However, where a tenant is not otherwise compelled to commence an action to enforce a fair market rent appeal award, the tenant is not entitled to recover interest on the award … . Prior to the commencement of this action, the plaintiffs exercised their right under the relevant provision of the Rent Stabilization Code (see 9 NYCRR 2522.3[d][1]) to withhold payment of rent until the principal balance of the FMRA award was fully credited to their account. The FMRA award was fully credited to the plaintiffs’ account by June 2007, after which the plaintiffs resumed paying rent. Thus, contrary to the plaintiffs’ allegations, there was no principal balance of the FMRA award due and owing to them. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs were not compelled to commence this action to enforce their FMRA award. Thus, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief they sought in the complaint, including the alleged principal balance, prejudgment interest, or an award of an attorney’s fee. Eisner v M & E Rubin LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 03477, 2nd Dept 5-14-1

 

,

Forum Selection Clause in Nursing Home Admission Agreement Should Have Been Enforced

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted plaintiff’s request for a change of forum, the forum selection clause in the agreement between plaintiff’s decedent and defendant nursing home (Concourse) controlled:

The plaintiff’s claim that the forum selection clause should not be upheld because this is a tort action and not a breach of contract action is without merit. The applicability of a forum selection clause does not depend on the nature of the underlying action. This Court has upheld nonnegotiated forum selection clauses contained in various contracts even where the underlying action was a personal injury action or medical malpractice action … . Rather, it is the language of the forum selection clause itself that determines which claims fall within its scope … . Here, the contract provision reciting that “[a]ny and all actions arising out of or related to th[e] Agreement” includes the causes of action in this action …, which are predicated on the care rendered by Concourse to the decedent pursuant to the terms of the Admission Agreement.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show that the forum selection clause was unreasonable or unjust, or that a trial in Westchester County would be so gravely difficult that, for all practical purposes, she would be deprived of her day in court. Also, the plaintiff did not allege, or demonstrate, that the forum selection clause was the result of fraud or overreaching. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to make any showing that the forum selection clause should be set aside … . Couvertier v Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03473, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

,

Defense Counsel’s Denial of Defendant’s Assertion He Was Forced to Plead Guilty Required Assignment of New Counsel

The Second Department determined defense counsel’s denial of defendant’s claim he was forced to plead quilty by defense counsel’s telling him a rejection of the plea offer would result in a much greater sentence effectively made defense counsel a witness against her client.  A new attorney should have been assigned at that point to protect defendant’s right to counsel.  People v Barr, 2014 NY Slip Op 02949, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

,

Failure to Appear at Deposition Was a Material Breach of a Condition Precedent to the Promise to Indemnify

The Second Department determined that the assignees of no-fault insurance benefits were not entitled to a second chance to appear at a deposition called by the plaintiff. Appearance at the deposition was a condition precedent to the promise to indemnify and the failure to appear was a material breach precluding recovery:

“It is well established that the failure to comply with the standard policy provision requiring disclosure by way of submission to an examination under oath, as often as may be reasonably required, as a condition precedent to performance of the promise to indemnify, constitutes a material breach” of the policy, precluding recovery of the policy proceeds … . In support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment, the plaintiff, upon renewal, submitted evidence establishing “that it twice duly demanded an examination under oath” from the assignees, that the assignees twice failed to appear, and that the plaintiff “issued a timely denial of the claims” arising from the assignees’ provision of medical services to the assignors … . Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .

In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the assignees failed to submit evidence of a reasonable excuse for their noncompliance with the demands for examinations under oath, or of partial performance on their part … . The assignees also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the reasonableness or propriety of the demands for the examinations under oath … . Moreover, “the [assignees’] breach of the policy was not cured by [their] belated expression of a willingness to cooperate which was made more than two years after the loss and only in response to the insurer’s motion for summary judgment” … . “[A]n insurance company is entitled to obtain information promptly while the information is still fresh to enable it to decide upon its obligations and protect against false claims. To permit [the defendants] to give the information more than [two] years after the [loss] would have been a material dilution of the insurance company’s rights” … . IDS Prop Cas Ins Co v Stracar Med Servs PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02902, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

Criteria for Review of Rulings on Variances Explained

The Second Department explained the general critieria for reviewing a variance-ruling by a town zoning board of appeals (ZBA):

In reaching its determination, the ZBA engaged in the balancing test prescribed by Town Law § 267-b(3)(b), and properly found, inter alia, that the requested variances were not substantial, would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, and would not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood * * * Since the determination under review was not illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion, and was supported by a rational basis …, it must be sustained. Matter of Harbor Park Realty, LLC v Modelewski, 2014 NY Slip Op 02931, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

Criteria for Rescission of a Life Insurance Policy Based Upon Material Misrpresentation Explained

The Second Department determined the insurer was entittled to summary judgment rescinding the life insurance policy based upon the insured’s material misrepresentation.  The court explained the operative principles:

“[T]o establish its right to rescind an insurance policy, an insurer must demonstrate that the insured made a material misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the facts misrepresented” (…see Insurance Law § 3105[b]…). Whether a misrepresentation is material is generally a question of fact for the jury … .

“To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must present documentation concerning its underwriting practices, such as underwriting manuals, bulletins, or rules pertaining to similar risks, which show that it would not have issued the same policy if the correct information had been disclosed in the application” (…see Insurance Law § 3105[c]…). “[E]ven innocent misrepresentations, if material, are sufficient to allow an insurer to defeat recovery under the insurance contract” … . “[M]aterial misrepresentations . . . if proven, would void the . . . insurance policy ab initio” … .

Here, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its counterclaim for rescission … . In support of its motion, the defendant established, prima facie, that the plaintiffs’ decedent made material misrepresentations in his application for the subject insurance policies. Moreover, the defendant also established, prima facie, that, had it been properly advised, it would not have issued the subject policies.

In opposition to the defendant’s showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its counterclaim for rescission of the life insurance policies, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning either the decedent’s misrepresentation or the materiality of that misrepresentation … . Smith v Guardian Life In Co of Am, 2014 NY Slip Op 02923, 2nd Dept 4-30-14

 

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