You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

THE MORTGAGE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN 2008; THE DEFENDANTS SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED A LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT IN 2008 WHICH DEACCELERATED THE DEBT AND RESET THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED AGAIN IN 2009; IN 2018 THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED AGAIN BY THE FILING OF THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS RUNNING FROM EACH MISSED PAYMENT, THE 2018 FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY BROUGHT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the foreclosure action was timely brought. The mortgage was initially accelerated in 2008 when the first foreclosure action was brought. But later in 2008 the defendants entered a loan modification agreement. That agreement validly revoked the acceleration of the debt and reset the statute of limitations. Defendants again defaulted on the mortgage payments in 2009. They argued that the statute of limitations started running upon their 2009 default, rendering the current foreclosure action untimely. The Third Department disagreed, finding that the plaintiff was not obligated to foreclose upon the first missed payment. Rather the plaintiff could wait and accelerate the debt upon any subsequent default, subject to the forfeiture of the right to recover any missed payments which occurred more than six years before the action was brought (each missed payment triggers a six-year statute of limitations):

… [P]laintiff submitted evidence establishing that the 2008 acceleration was validly revoked through the execution of the loan modification agreement, thereby causing the statute of limitations to reset as of that date. Defendants do not dispute that, even after FAPA [Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act], a validly executed loan modification agreement can reset the statute of limitations period on a previously accelerated loan, so long as the agreement complies with the writing requirements of General Obligations Law § 17-105 (1) … . * * *

Nothing in FAPA or the General Obligations Law changed the basic rule that the statute of limitations runs separately from the due date of each unpaid installment … , or, if the mortgagee elects to accelerate the entire debt, from the date of the acceleration … . * * *

Defendants’ missed payments in 2009 gave plaintiff the right to sue to recover such payments, but did not obligate plaintiff to do so. Instead, plaintiff could wait to exercise its option to accelerate the entire amount of the debt upon any subsequent default, in which case the statute of limitations would run from the date of the acceleration … , subject to forfeiture of the right to recover any missed payments that did not occur within six years prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action … . Ditech Fin. LLC v Temple, 2026 NY Slip Op 00951, Third Dept 2-19-26

Practice Point: A loan modification agreement entered within six years of the 2008 acceleration of the debt deaccelerated the debt and reset the statute of limitations (a scenario not changed by the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act [FAPA]).

Practice Point: The six-year foreclosure statute of limitations starts running upon each missed mortgage payment. Here the 2018 foreclosure action was timely because it was brought within six years of a missed payment. Any missed payments which occurred prior to six years before the 2018 foreclosure was commenced were forfeited.

 

, ,

THE MISTRIAL, GRANTED AFTER THE JURY WAS SWORN, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY BAR TO FURTHER PROSECUTION BECAUSE THE JUDGE’S INQUIRY REVEALED THAT A JUROR’S COMMENTS, AND THE OTHER JURORS’ REACTIONS TO THOSE COMMENTS, IRREPARABLY TAINTED THE JURY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, dismissing the defendant’s (respondent’s) prohibition petition, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined that the mistrial granted after the jury had been sworn did trigger the double-jeopardy bar to further prosecution because the trial judge (the respondent) properly found “there was manifest necessity for the mistrial.” Comments made by juror No. 5, and other jurors reactions to the comments, irreparably tainted the jury:

… CPL 280.10 authorizes the court to declare a mistrial “[u]pon motion of the people, when there occurs during the trial, either inside or outside the courtroom, gross misconduct by . . . a juror, resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the people’s case” … . * * *

… [J]uror No. 5’s comments and flagrant disregard for respondent’s admonitions resulted in “substantial and irreparable prejudice” to the People’s case (CPL 280.10 [2]). Although each juror averred that they could nevertheless remain fair and impartial, the record supports respondent’s contrary conclusion in light of the hesitation of many jurors to disclose juror No. 5’s conduct, the denial of others as to having heard any of the subject comments at all and another juror who gave contradictory answers about what he had heard, notwithstanding respondent’s instructions to report improper attempts to influence the jury. Matter of Guiden v Jose-Decker, 2026 NY Slip Op 00942, Third Dept 2-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the procedure to be followed by the judge before granting a mistrial after the jury has been sworn. To avoid the double-jeopardy bar to further prosecution, the record must demonstrate “a manifest necessity for a mistrial.”

 

,

RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PROTECTION ACT (FAPA) DOES NOT VIOLATE THE TAKINGS CLAUSE OF THE US AND NY CONSTITUTIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) does not violate the Takings Clause of the US and NY Constitutions. The Court of Appeals has already ruled that retroactive application of FAPA does not violate due process or the Contract Clause:

“Those who do business in [a] regulated field cannot object if the legislative scheme is buttressed by subsequent amendments to achieve the legislative end” … Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Marshall, 2026 NY Slip Op 00946, Third Dept 2-19-26

 

PETITIONER LEASED COMMERCIAL TRUCKS; AT THE OUTSET OF THE LEASE PETITIONER PAID SALES TAX BASED ON THE ESTIMATED RENT; IF, AT THE END OF THE LEASE, THE ACTUAL RENT WAS LOWER THAN THE ESTIMATED RENT, PETITIONER REFUNDED THE EXCESS RENT AND SALES TAX; PETITIONER THEN TOOK CREDITS FOR THE REFUNDED SALES TAX; THE TAX TRIBUNAL FOUND PETITIONER COULD NOT TAKE THOSE CREDITS AND IMPOSED A SALES TAX ASSESSMENT OF NEARLY $3 MILLION; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT FINDING THE CREDITS PROPER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, annulled the Tax Appeals Tribunal’s sustaining of a nearly $3 million sales tax assessment imposed on petitioner. Petitioner leased commercial trucks. At the outset of the lease petitioner paid sales tax based on the estimated rent. At the end of the lease the actual rent was calculated based upon the value of the truck. If the actual rent was lower than the estimated rent paid at the outset, the excess rent and sales tax was refunded. Petitioner took tax credits for those refunds. The Third Department determined taking the credits was proper. Matter of Gelco Corp. v State of N.Y. Tax Appeals Trib., 2026 NY Slip Op 00553, Third Dept 2-5-26

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SHED WHICH WAS BEING TRANSPORTED AS AN OVERSIZED LOAD; AN EMPLOYER WHICH HIRES AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WILL GENERALLY NOT BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR IS TASKED WITH AN “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY;” TRANSPORTING AN OVERSIZED LOAD BY TRUCK IS NOT AN “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY;” THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE TRUCK DRIVER’S NEGLIGENCE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Powers, over a dissent, determined defendant ACS, which hired defendant St. Mary as an independent contractor, was not vicariously liable for the negligence of a driver working for St. Mary. Plaintiff was struck by a shed which was being transported by truck as an oversized load. Although the employer is usually not vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, there is an exception where the employer assigns an “inherently dangerous” task to the independent contractor. The majority concluded that moving a shed on a truck as an oversized load did not meet the definition of “inherently dangerous:”

​It is undisputed that St Mary was an independent contractor of ACS and, as a general rule, “a party who retains an independent contractor, as distinguished from a mere employee or servant, is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . Certain exceptions exist to this general rule, however. These exceptions include, as is relevant here, ” ‘where the employer . . . has assigned work to an independent contractor which the employer knows or has reason to know involves special dangers inherent in the work or dangers which should have been anticipated by the employer’ ” … . * * *

… “[A]n actor who hires an independent contractor to do work that the actor knows or should know involves an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to vicarious liability for physical harm when the abnormally dangerous activity is a factual cause of any such harm within the scope of liability” (Restatement [Third] of Torts § 58). “[A]n activity is abnormally dangerous if: (1) the activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and (2) the activity is not one of common usage” … .

​… [N]o view of the facts presented on this motion supports the conclusion that the trucking of the oversized load in question was an inherently dangerous activity because there was not a significant risk of harm if reasonable care were exercised by those involved — namely, Rousell [the driver]. Plaintiff alleges that his injuries resulted from Rousell failing to take notice of his surroundings on one side of the vehicle and crossing the line separating lanes of travel. This ordinary incident of negligence — i.e., failing to appropriately observe one’s surroundings — is not inherent in the trucking of oversized loads and could have been avoided with the exercise of reasonable care. “Demanding though it may be, the activity of transporting [oversized loads on public highways] — successfully accomplished countless times daily — does not involve that sort of inherent risk for the nonnegligent driver and is simply not an inherently dangerous activity so as to trigger vicarious liability” … . Deitrich v Binghamton Rd. Elec., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00557, Third Dept 2-5-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into what constitutes an “inherently dangerous activity” which can trigger an employer’s vicarious liability for the negligence of an independent contractor.​

 

, ,

BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA AND SENTENCING, THE COURT HELD A HEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA); AT THE HEARING DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE WHEN SHE STABBED THE VICTIM; THAT TESTIMONY TRIGGERED THE NEED FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION BY THE JUDGE; THE MAJORITY APPLIED AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AND REVERSE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EXCEPTION TO THE PRESEVATION REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant raised a question whether defendant stabbed the victim in self-defense in open court between the plea and sentencing which the judge was required to, but failed to explore. The majority applied an exception to the preservation requirement triggered when an element of the crime is negated by the defendant in open court between the plea and the sentencing. Although nothing in the in the plea colloquy negated an element of the crime, during the post-plea hearing on defendant’s application for alternative sentencing pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) defendant testified she acted in self defense. The two dissenters argued the exception to the preservation requirement did not apply and the appeal should not have been considered:

Defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy or at sentencing that negated an element of the crimes to which she pleaded guilty, raised the possibility of a particular defense or suggested an involuntary plea so as to implicate the narrow exception to the preservation rule … . That said, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is implicated whenever a defendant “negate[s] an element of the crime to which a plea has been entered or make[s] [a] statement[ ] suggestive of an involuntary plea” in open court between the plea and sentencing, obliging the trial court to “conduct a further inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … .

From the dissent:

… [D]efendant’s statements during the DVSJA hearing did not signify a lack of understanding about the nature of the charges to which she pleaded guilty or that her plea was involuntary. We are mindful that defendant’s statements during the hearing suggest that she had a potential justification defense, but the hearing was contemplated by the plea agreement itself, the statements were made for the purpose of establishing defendant’s entitlement to a reduced sentence under Penal Law § 60.12 and defendant twice reaffirmed her plea during the hearing. Notably, at the end of the hearing, defense counsel expressly stated that defendant had “knowingly plea[ded guilty to the indictment.” Under these particular circumstances and when considered in context, defendant’s postplea statements “did not raise a legitimate question about the voluntariness of [defendant’s] plea” … so as to impose upon the court a duty of further inquiry to ensure that the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . People v Brown-Shook, 2026 NY Slip Op 00172, Third Dept 1-16-26

Practice Point: Here the defendant pled guilty and moved for an alternative sentence under the DVSJA. At the DVSJA hearing she testified she stabbed the victim in self defense. There is a narrow exception to the preservation requirement when a defendant negates an element of the crime in open court between pleading guilty and sentencing. Over a two-justice dissent, the majority applied the preservation exception and reversed on the ground the judge did not explore the possibility defendant had acted in self defense.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT TO CONCURRENT SENTENCES, THE PLEA AGREEMENT CONTEMPLATED CONCURRENT SENTENCES AND THE JUDGE’S STATEMENTS CREATED CONFUSION ON THE ISSUE; IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONTENTS OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT, THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE VACATED AND CONCURRENT SENTENCES WERE IMPOSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, directing that defendant’s sentences be served concurrently, not consecutively, determined that the plea agreement contemplated the imposition of concurrent sentences and the judge’s confusing and ambiguous language in the plea colloquy warranted modification of the sentence:

We recognize that the imposition of consecutive sentences was authorized under Penal Law § 70.25 (2) … , and that County Court did not make any express sentencing commitment to defendant. However, the plea agreement contemplated the imposition of concurrent sentences, County Court stated during the plea proceedings that the maximum term of imprisonment defendant faced on a class C violent felony was 15 years, and the court used confusing and ambiguous language during the plea colloquy regarding the possibility of consecutive sentencing … . In light of the confusion, defendant seeks vacatur of his plea or modification of the sentence to reflect a concurrent sentence. On this record, and after accounting for the circumstances set forth in the PSR, we find that the imposition of concurrent sentences is appropriate and modify the judgment accordingly … . People v Bonville, 2026 NY Slip Op 00039, Third Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: Here it is possible the defendant entered the plea agreement with the understanding that the sentences would run concurrently. Although the judge did not commit to concurrent sentences, the judge’s statements on the issue were confusing and ambiguous. The Third Department, in the interest of justice, after reviewing the presentence report, imposed concurrent sentences.

 

, ,

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN NEW YORK, COUNSEL WAS SANCTIONED IN THE AMOUNT OF $5000 FOR SUBMITTING AI-GENERATED BRIEFS CITING 23 “FAKE” DECISIONS; IN ADDITION, COUNSEL AND HIS CLIENT WERE EACH SANCTIONED IN THE AMOUNT OF $2500 FOR FILING A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, in a matter of first impression, determined (1) counsel for the defendant in this foreclosure action should be sanctioned for submitting appellate briefs generated by AI which cited 23 “fake” appellate decisions, and (2) counsel for the defendant and the defendant should be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal: Defendant’s counsel was sanctioned in the amount of $5000 for the AI generated briefs and $2500 for the frivolous appeal. Defendant was sanctioned in the amount of $2500 for the frivolous appeal:

… [R]ecognizing this as the first appellate-level case in New York addressing sanctions for the misuse of GenAI, we find the imposition of a monetary sanction on defense counsel Joshua A. Douglass in the amount of $5,000 to be appropriate under the circumstances, with the further goal of deterring future frivolous conduct by defendant and the bar at large … . To be clear, attorneys and litigants are not prohibited from using GenAI to assist with the preparation of court submissions. The issue arises when attorneys and staff are not sufficiently trained on the dangers of such technology, and instead erroneously rely on it without human oversight. As with the work from a paralegal, intern or another attorney, the use of GenAI in no way abrogates an attorney’s or litigant’s obligation to fact check and cite check every document filed with a court. To do otherwise may be sanctionable, depending on the facts and particular circumstances of each case. * * *

Although defense counsel signed the papers filed with this Court …, it is … not unnoticed that the metadata of numerous documents indicate they originated from a program in his client’s name. Such result would be consistent with defendant filing papers pro se before Supreme Court, and defense counsel’s apparent unfamiliarity during oral argument with certain papers he allegedly filed during the pendency of this appeal. Given the baseless nature of this appeal, and recognizing that sanctions must be goal oriented to deter future conduct to prevent the waste of judicial resources and continued vexatious litigation of specific individuals too … , we conclude that an additional sanction of $2,500 shall be imposed on defense counsel … and $2,500 shall be imposed on defendant … for pursing this appeal. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LeTennier, 2026 NY Slip Op 00040, Third Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: For the first time in New York an attorney was sanctioned for submitting AI-generated briefs which cited “fake” decisions.

Practice Point: Here both counsel and his client were sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal. It was clear that the client played a role in creating the AI-generated briefs.

 

, , , ,

WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING DEPENDED ON WHETHER THERE WAS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT; THE EXISTENCE OF AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” IS A FACT-INTENSIVE INQUIRY WHICH, WHEN IN DISPUTE, REQUIRES A HEARING; MATTER REMITTED FOR THE HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should have ordered a hearing to determine whether the respondent had an “intimate relationship” with the petitioner such that a family offense proceeding alleging identify theft could be brought by the petitioner against the respondent. Whether an “intimate relationship” exist is a fact-intensive inquiry and when it is in dispute a hearing should be held:

Family Court’s jurisdiction in family offense proceedings, as defined by Family Ct Act § 812 (1), extends to enumerated offenses occurring between members of the same family or household, including those “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … . While the statute does not define “intimate relationship,” it expressly excludes casual acquaintances and ordinary social or business associations … . In determining whether an intimate relationship exists, courts consider, among other things, “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” … . Additionally, “the relationship should be direct [and] not one based upon a connection with a third party” … . Whether an intimate relationship exists is a fact-intensive inquiry to be resolved on a case-by-case basis … . When the existence of an intimate relationship is in dispute, or the record is insufficient to permit determination as a matter of law, Family Court should conduct a hearing before dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction … . Matter of McCarra v Chiaramonte, 2025 NY Slip Op 07352, Third Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Family Court has jurisdiction over family offense proceedings involving unrelated parties if there exists an “intimate relationship” between the parties. Determining whether there is an “intimate relationship” is a fact-intensive inquiry usually requires a hearing.

 

, , ,

IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ORDER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN THIS TOXIC TORT CASE; NO FRYE HEARING WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE EXPERTS DID NOT USE NOVEL OR EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; NO PARKER HEARING WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC CAUSATION WERE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN THE EXPERTS’ SUBMISSIONS AND GENERALLY ACCEPTED METHODS WERE USED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresa, determined there was no need for a Frye hearing in this toxic tort case because none of the three experts used methods that were novel or experimental. In addition, there was no need for a Parker hearing because the expert’s used generally accepted methods to determine general and specific causation. Therefore ordering the evidentiary hearing was an abuse of discretion:

“The singular purpose of a Frye hearing is to ascertain the reliability of novel scientific evidence by determining whether the methods used to generate such evidence will, when properly performed, produce results accepted as reliable within the scientific community generally” … . ” ‘A court need not hold a Frye hearing where it can rely upon previous rulings in other court proceedings as an aid in determining the admissibility of the proffered testimony’ ” … . “Absent a novel or experimental scientific theory, a Frye hearing is generally unwarranted” … . * * *

… [U]nder Parker, ” ‘[t]he focus moves from the general reliability concerns of Frye to the specific reliability of the procedures followed to generate the evidence proffered and whether they establish a foundation for the reception of the evidence at trial.’ . . . [In toxic tort cases,] [i]t is well-established that an opinion on causation should set forth a plaintiff’s exposure to a toxin, that the toxin is capable of causing the particular illness (general causation) and that plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the illness (specific causation)” (Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d at 447-448 …). … [A] s plaintiffs’ [experts’] written submissions … offered the requisite causal links, there was no need for a hearing to determine whether these foundational standards were met. Marpe v Tonoga, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07053, Third Dept 12-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when a Frye/Parker hearing is necessary to determine the admissibility of expert evidence in a toxic tort case. The evidentiary hearing had been ordered by the trial judge, but the Third Department held ordering the hearing was an abuse of discretion.

 

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