You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW CAN BE BASED UPON A CLARIFICATION OF DECISIONAL LAW, BUT NOT, AS WAS THE CASE HERE, ON A DECISION APPLYING ESTABLISHED LAW TO THE FACTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion for leave to renew should not have been granted because it was not based upon a change in law. Rather it was based upon a case in which established law was applied to the facts:

“A motion for leave to renew is the appropriate vehicle for seeking relief from a prior order based on a change in the law,” including, a clarification of decisional law ( …see CPLR 2221[e][2]). Here, however, the defendant failed to demonstrate such a change in the law … . Instead, the defendant merely pointed to case law … , in which this Court applied established law … to the facts presented in the particular case before it. Sharan v Christiana Trust, 2023 NY Slip Op 04789, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: A motion for leave to renew can be based on a change in the law, even a clarification of decisional law. But here the motion was improperly based upon a decision which merely applied established law to the facts.

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION SEEKING A CIVIL CONTEMPT DETERMINATION COULD NOT BE HEARD BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING SUIT HAD BEEN SETTLED BY STIPULATION WITH PREJUDICE, STRIPPING SUPREME COURT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; A SUBJECT-MATTER-JURISDICTION ISSUE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the civil contempt action should have been dismissed because the underlying lawsuit had been settled with prejudice by stipulation. Because the issue relates to a court’s subject matter jurisdiction it can be raised on appeal at any time. The underlying lawsuit was a property dispute and concerned the location of a fence. After the stipulation settling the suit, defendants refused to sign a fence location agreement. Because the underlying suit was discontinued with prejudice the plaintiffs only option is to commence a plenary action:

… [T]he defendants’ assertion, raised for the first time on appeal, that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs’ motion, is properly before this Court, as a defect in subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time … .

“A motion must be addressed to a pending action” … , and a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion after the action has been “‘unequivocally terminated . . . [by the execution of] an express, unconditional stipulation of discontinuance'” … , “or actual entry of judgment in accordance with the terms of the settlement” … .

Here, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to hold the defendants in civil contempt, since the action was unconditionally discontinued with prejudice by the parties’ stipulation, as memorialized in the settlement order … . Thus, the relief requested by the plaintiffs was not available by way of a motion, and could only be obtained by commencing a plenary action … . Riccio v Kukaj, 2023 NY Slip Op 04785, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: A stipulation settling a suit with prejudice strips the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore a subsequent motion cannot be heard by the court and any further proceedings require a plenary action. A subject-matter-jurisdiction issue can be raised for the first time on appeal.

 

DEFENDANT-PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO RELEASE FROM PRE-INDICTMENT CUSTODY PURSUANT TO CPL 30.30 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the habeas corpus petition seeking defendant-petitioner’s release from pre-indictment custody should have been granted:

… [P]etitioner demonstrated that more than 90 days elapsed from the commencement of the defendant’s confinement on April 27, 2023, until July 31, 2023, the date the petitioner made an application to the Supreme Court pursuant to CPL 30.30(2)(a) for the defendant’s release. The Supreme Court nonetheless denied the petitioner’s application, concluding that the People were entitled to exclude an unspecified period of time attributable to a delay in satisfying their obligation to produce relevant portions of the grand jury minutes. The People asserted that this delay in complying with their obligation pursuant to CPL 245.20(1)(b) was caused by a backlog on the part of a court reporter in producing the minutes. The Supreme Court incorrectly determined that the circumstances surrounding the People’s production of the minutes constituted excludable delay, whether based on exceptional circumstances or some other ground set forth in CPL 30.30(4). Among other reasons, the People failed to demonstrate that the timing of the production of the minutes was beyond their control, or that they engaged in diligent efforts to produce the outstanding discovery by their trial readiness deadline … . People ex rel. Fast v Molina, 2023 NY Slip Op 04641, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: Here the reasons provided by the People for their inability to be ready for trial should not have been deemed adequate to meet the criteria for excludable delay pursuant to CPL 30.30.

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing to bring the action and did not demonstrate it complied with the notice-of-default requirement in the mortgage:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish … that it had standing to commence this action. Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and three undated purported allonges, one of which was endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonges, which were each on a piece of paper completely separate from the note and the other allonges, were “so firmly affixed” to the note “as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … .

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish its status as the holder of the note at the time of the commencement of the action. In her affidavit, a representative employed by the plaintiff’s loan servicer did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures, and therefore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by the affiant were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in the mortgage agreement, which required that it provide the defendant with a notice of default prior to demanding payment of the loan in full. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff did not establish that a notice of default was mailed by first-class mail or actually delivered to the defendant’s “notice address” if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Yoel, 2023 NY Slip Op 04682, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: If the defendant in a foreclosure action alleges the bank lacks standing to bring the action, the bank must demonstrate it was the holder of the note at the time the action was brought. In addition, the UCC requires that allonges endorsed in blank be “firmly affixed” to the note.

 

,

THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE DEFENDANT DEVELOPED THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPLAINANT FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF VICTIMIZING HER AND THEREFORE 20 POINTS WERE PROPERLY ASSESSED UNDER RISK FACTOR 7; THE COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A PRE-EXISTING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPLAINANT WHICH RENDERD RISK FACTOR 7 INAPPLICABLE UNDER THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING IN COOK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined, over a comprehensive dissent, that defendant was properly assessed 20 points because his relationship with the 13-year-old victim was deemed to have been established for the primary purpose of victimizing her. The dissent argued there was a pre-existing relationship and, therefore, defendant did not develop the relationship for the purpose of victimization:

… [T]he record indicates that the defendant did not have a long-standing preexisting relationship with the complainant’s parents, and was not involved in the complainant’s life since her infancy. Rather, the defendant had worked with the complainant’s uncle and was invited to the uncle’s house for lunch, where he met the complainant. Thus, this case is readily distinguishable from the circumstances of Cook [29 NY3d at 121]. Contrary to the position of our dissenting colleague, the fact that the defendant’s initial contact with the complainant was unplanned and in person, rather than through the internet, is not determinative with respect to the assessment of points under risk factor 7 based on an offender’s establishment or promotion of a relationship with the victim for the primary purpose of victimization … . The Guidelines, which were created in 1996, do not limit the assessment of points under those circumstances to situations where the offender and the victim initially met online. People v Jony, 2023 NY Slip Op 04674, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: A long-standing relationship between a defendant and a victim of sexual abuse may demonstrate the relationship was not established for the primary purpose of victimization rendering the assessment of 20 points under risk factor 7 inapplicable. Here the majority concluded there was no such pre-existing relationship, but the dissent made a strong contrary argument.

 

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE FROM JAIL PURSUANT TO CPL 180.80 BUT WAS KEPT INCARCERATED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 2 1/2 MONTHS; PLAINTIFF’S FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ford, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s causes of action for false imprisonment and negligence should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff sued the town because he was not released from custody pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 180.80:

CPL 180.80 “requires the release of individuals being held in pretrial detention pending action of a Grand Jury after 120 or 144 hours of custody unless, among other neutralizing circumstances, an indictment has been voted” … . * * *

The allegation that the defendant detained the plaintiff for an additional 2½ months after it was required to release him pursuant to CPL 180.80 is a very serious one. This Court notes that the defendant does not deny this allegation outright, but instead attempts to shift blame to the plaintiff for what would, if true, be its own grievous error. McKay v Town of Southampton, 2023 NY Slip Op 04664, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff was not released from jail when he was eligible for release pursuant to CPL 180.80. His lawsuit against the town for false imprisonment and negligence should not have been dismissed.

 

, ,

IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF PRE-ACCIDENT REPAIRS BUT NOT POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this stairway slip and fall case, determined plaintiff was entitled to discovery of pre-accident repairs, but not to post-accident repairs:

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to produce repair-related records for the subject stairway, and a list of all employees and contractors that performed work on the subject stairway, for the period of two years prior to the date of the subject accident. The plaintiffs demonstrated that those documents were material and necessary to the prosecution of this action, and the defendant failed to demonstrate that a protective order was warranted with respect to those documents … .

However, the Supreme Court erred in directing the defendant to disclose such records for the one-year period after the date of the accident. “Evidence of subsequent repairs and remedial measures is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case” … . “An exception to this rule applies if a defendant’s maintenance of, or control over, the subject instrumentality is at issue” … . Here, there is no issue as to the maintenance and control of the subject stairway … . C.B. v New York City Tr. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 04650, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff in this stairway slip and fall case is entitled to discovery of pre-accident, but not post-accident, repairs.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LESSOR OF THE CAR INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE GRAVES AMENDMENT; DEFENDANT LESSOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGATION THE CAR WAS NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED WAS “NOT A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s cause of action against the lessor of the car involved in the accident (Rallye) should not have been dismissed pursuant to the Graves Amendment. Defendant lessor did not demonstrate the allegation the car was negligently maintained was “not a fact at all:”

“Pursuant to the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106), the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held liable for personal injuries resulting from the use of such vehicle if: (1) the owner is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner” … .

In considering a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Further, where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and “unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the [plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it,” dismissal should not eventuate … .

Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, an affidavit from Rallye’s employee, who averred that Rallye’s vehicle was in good working condition at the time it allegedly was rented to Orphanides [the defendant driver], did not show that the plaintiff’s allegation of negligent maintenance on the part of Rallye was not a fact at all … . Holmquist v Orphanides, 2023 NY Slip Op 04660, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: In the context of a motion to dismiss, an affidavit stating that the leased car involved in the accident was in good working order will not, pursuant to the Graves Amendment, defeat a complaint which alleges the leased car was negligently maintained  The affidavit does not establish the negligent-maintenance allegation is “not a fact at all.”

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “GOOD CAUSE” FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, BUT DID DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO AN EXTENSION IN THE “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to extend the time for service of process in this foreclosure action should have been granted. Although plaintiff did not demonstrate “good cause” for the failure to timely serve, the motion met the criteria for an extension in the interest of justice:

“Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time within which to effect service of the summons and complaint for good cause shown or in the interest of justice” … . “Good cause and interest of justice are two separate and independent statutory standards” … . “Good cause requires a showing of reasonable diligence in attempting to effect service” … . “[I]n deciding whether to grant a motion to extend the time for service in the interest of justice, the court must carefully analyze the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties. Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter” … . Under the interest of justice standard, “the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to [the] defendant” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to serve the defendant under CPLR 306-b. In support of the motion, the plaintiff offered nothing more than the affidavit of service of its process server. While a process server’s affidavit of service creates a presumption of proper service, the Supreme Court had already determined that the defendant presented sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on the validity of service of process … .

However, the plaintiff established its entitlement to an extension of time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint in the interest of justice. The plaintiff established that the action was timely commenced, that service was timely attempted and was perceived by the plaintiff to have been made within 120 days after the commencement of the action, and that the plaintiff promptly sought an extension of time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint after the defendant challenged service on the ground that it was defective. The plaintiff also established that the statute of limitations had expired when the plaintiff made its motion to extend the time to serve, that the plaintiff had a potentially meritorious cause of action, and that there was no identifiable prejudice to the defendant attributable to the delay in service … . Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Lyons, 2023 NY Slip Op 04654, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: If you can’t demonstrate “good cause” for an extension of time for service of process, you still may be entitled to an extension in the “interest of justice.”

 

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