You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

PLAINTIFF BANK’S 2017 DE-ACCELERATION LETTER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND THEREFORE SERVED TO STOP THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TRIGGERED BY THE INITIAL FORECLOSURE ACTION IN 2012; THEREFORE THE SECOND FORECLOSURE ACTION BROUGHT IN 2018 WAS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined plaintiff bank’s 2017 de-acceleration letter was not ambiguous and served to stop the running of the statute of limitations triggered when the mortgage loan was accelerated by initial the 2012 foreclosure action:

… [P]laintiff submitted … a copy of the September 27, 2018 de-acceleration notice sent by the mortgage servicer, indicating that “we hereby revoke any prior acceleration of the loan, withdrawing any prior demand for immediate payment of all sums secured by the security instrument and re-institute the loan as an installment loan” … . The notice advised that defendants could resume making monthly payments, which would now be accepted by plaintiff, and further provided that defendants “also have the right to pay the monthly payments that came due prior to and would have come due during the prior acceleration, which has not been revoked.” …

Supreme Court found, that this … language — “which has not been revoked” — made the entire notice unclear and ambiguous, we disagree. Such statement was advising defendants of their right to satisfy the arrears and their continuing obligation to make monthly payments; the next sentence in the notice warned that, if defendants failed to “cure the payments in arrears,” plaintiff reserved the right “to accelerate the loan anew.” To this end, defendants’ claim that this language is inconsistent with the monthly statements sent before and after the de-acceleration notice is belied by the record, which confirms that such statements sought payment on the total amount of the arrears plus the monthly mortgage payment, and not the total principal of the mortgage. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A. v Bresler, 2022 NY Slip Op 06671, Third Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, a de-acceleration letter will stop the running of the statute of limitations as long as the letter is clear and unambiguous. Here Supreme Court found the letter ambiguous and, therefore, ineffective; but the Third Department disagreed.

 

, ,

IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING, MOTHER’S PROOF OF THE CHILD’S INJURIES IN FATHER’S CARE AND HER IMPROVED PARENTING SKILLS AND LIVING CONDITIONS WAS SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND FATHER’S MOTION TO DISMISS; THE JUDGE APPEARS TO HAVE PREJUDGED THE CASE; MATTER REMITTED TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the case to a different judge, determined mother’s petition for a modification of custody should not have been dismissed:

“A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order must first show that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the existing custody order that then warrants an inquiry into what custodial arrangement is in the best interests of the child” … .. “Only after this threshold hurdle has been met will the court conduct a best interests analysis” … . “When, as here, Family Court is tasked with deciding a motion to dismiss at the close of the petitioner’s proof, the court must accept the petitioner’s evidence as true and afford the petitioner every favorable inference that could reasonably be drawn from that evidence, including resolving all credibility questions in the petitioner’s favor” … . * * *

After reviewing the record, we find that the mother’s proof regarding injuries suffered by the child during the father’s parenting time, taken together with the mother’s improved parenting abilities and living conditions, demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss … . * * *

Based on Family Court’s comments regarding its predispositions and its inappropriate comment regarding the mother’s credibility, Family Court appears to have prejudged the case … . Therefore, this matter must be remitted for a new hearing before a different judge. Matter of Nicole B. v Franklin A., 2022 NY Slip Op 06672, Third Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here the evidence of the child’s injuries in father’s care and mother’s improved parenting skills and living conditions was sufficient to support her petition for a modification of custody. Father’s motion to dismiss the petition should not have been granted. The judge’s remarks about mother’s credibility and his encouraging father to make a motion to dismiss indicated the judge had prejudged the case. The matter was sent back to be heard by a different judge.

 

,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE SPONTANEOUS USE OF A KNIFE BY THE PERPETRATOR IN THIS MURDER CASE; THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE PERPETRATOR’S INTENT, THEREFORE, WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for murder under an accomplice theory, determined the evidence defendant shared the intent of Mack, who stabbed the victim, was insufficient:

To hold a person responsible for the criminal conduct of another, the People must demonstrate that “when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, he [or she] solicit[ed], request[ed], command[ed], importune[d], or intentionally aid[ed] [the principal] to engage in such conduct” (Penal Law § 20.00 …). In other words, when proceeding “under an acting in concert theory, [the People must prove that] the accomplice and principal [shared] a ‘community of purpose'” … . Moreover, in the case of willful homicide, “a spontaneous and not concerted or planned use of [a] weapon to kill is not, without more, attributable to the companion whose guilt in a joint design to effect death must be established beyond a reasonable doubt” … . In this respect, “[i]t is essential that the intent by [the defendant] to kill be fairly deducible from the proof and that the proof exclude any other purpose” … . …

The sole eyewitness testimony presented by the People established that the altercation between Mack and the victim began as a fist fight until the victim gained the upper hand and knocked Mack to the ground. When Mack got up, he began swinging wildly at the victim, at which point the eyewitness first observed that Mack had a knife in his hand, which had become visible because of the lights from neighboring establishments. The witness testified that he had not seen the knife prior to the victim knocking Mack down and no other evidence presented at trial established that the knife was visible prior to that point. * * *

Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we find that the jury would have been required to speculate that defendant had become aware of Mack’s spontaneous use of a knife during the altercation … . People v Jenkins, 2022 NY Slip Op 06652. Third Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here the perpetrator, Mack, spontaneously pulled out a knife after he was knocked down in a fist fight with the victim. There was no evidence defendant was aware of Mack’s spontaneous use of a knife, and, therefore, there was no evidence defendant shared Mack’s intent to stab the victim.

 

, , ,

EVEN IF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE INSURER AND CLAIMANT INSURANCE BROKER INCLUDED ALL THE STATUTORY FACTORS IN LABOR LAW 511, THE BROKER WILL BE CONSIDERED AN EMPLOYEE IF THE SERVICES ACTUALLY PROVIDED BY THE BROKER ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the insurance company, Paul Revere, did not demonstrate that claimant insurance broker was not an employee. Claimant was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Labor Law § 511 (21) provides that “[t]he term ’employment’ shall not include the services of a licensed insurance agent or broker if,” among other things, “the services performed by the agent or broker are performed pursuant to a written contract” … that, in turn, contains seven statutorily enumerated provisions … . Here, the Board concluded that two of the seven statutory requirements were absent from the written agreement entered into between claimant and Paul Revere — specifically, provisions demonstrating that claimant was “permitted to work any hours he . . . chooses” … and was “permitted to work out of his . . . own office or home or the office of the person for whom services are performed” … . Paul Revere disagrees, contending that article XI (A) of the written contract satisfies such requirements by providing that “Paul Revere shall not exercise nor have the right to exercise direction or control over [claimant’s] time, when or how [claimant] may work, or over the activities of [claimant].”

… [W]e agree with the Board that the conclusory and sweeping language employed in article XI (A) of the contract does not satisfy the requirements of Labor Law § 511 (21) (d) (iii) and (iv). … [E]ven assuming, without deciding, that the written agreement between Paul Revere and claimant did … fulfill all of the statutory requirements, we agree with the Board’s further conclusion that the parties’ conduct was inconsistent with the provisions of Labor Law § 511 (21) and, therefore, the services performed by claimant do not fall within the statutory exclusion…. . …

… [T]he statute requires both that the contract at issue contain the seven enumerated provisions and “that the services performed by the insurance agent or broker actually be consistent with those provisions” … . Matter of Hoyt (Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.–Commissioner of Labor), 2022 NY Slip Op 06518, Third Dept 11-17-22

Practice Point: Even if the contract between the insurer and claimant insurance broker includes all the statutory provisions in Labor Law 511 (such that the broker would not be considered an employee for unemployment insurance purposes), if the services actually performed by the broker are not consistent with those contract provisions the broker may be deemed an employee eligible for benefits.

 

,

CONTRARY TO SUPREME COURT’S RULING, THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, BY ITS TERMS, DECLARED THE CONTRACT CANCELLED IF THE INSPECTION REVEALED PROBLEMS AND THE PARTIES DID NOT AGREE ON HOW TO ADDRESS THOSE PROBLEMS WITHIN TEN DAYS; THE INSPECTION IN FACT REVEALED PROBLEMS AND NO AGREEMENT ON RESOLUTION WAS MADE WITHIN THE ALOTTED TEN DAYS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the real estate purchase agreement was canceled in accordance with its own terms:

… [P]laintiff’s transmission of the form contract and rider constituted an offer, and the sellers counteroffered by signing and returning to plaintiff only the form contract without the rider. Plaintiff then accepted the counteroffer by proceeding with the inspections, as “a counteroffer may be accepted by conduct” … . We also agree with the court that plaintiff’s counsel’s May 18, 2020 letter did not constitute attorney disapproval of the contract under the attorney approval contingency. This letter merely acknowledged receipt of the signed contract and inquired as to the rider and other documents; in no way did it signal disapproval.

… Plaintiff’s attorney, in his letter of June 17, 2020, notified the sellers’ attorney that the property had failed multiple inspections, and provided a copy of the relevant inspection report. This conduct, in accordance with the language set forth in the inspection contingency, rendered the contract “cancelled, null and void” unless plaintiff chose to defer cancellation for 10 days. Given that the letter from plaintiff’s attorney also set forth potential ways in which the inspection issues could be resolved, we are satisfied that the 10-day option was exercised. That said, the parties did not reach a written agreement on these issues within 10 days as was expressly required pursuant to the inspection contingency … . Savignano v Play, 2022 NY Slip Op 06307, Third Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: In reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department simply read the real estate purchase agreement and enforced the term deeming the contract cancelled if the parties did not agree on the resolution of problems revealed by inspection within ten days. No such agreement was reached.

 

,

PETITIONERS’ CHALLENGE TO THE NEW PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTION LAW ADDRESSING THE NEW PROCESS OF CANVASSING ABSENTEE BALLOTS WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the challenge to the new process of canvassing absentee ballots was precluded by the doctrine of laches:

Petitioners commenced this proceeding/action challenging the constitutionality of the new process of canvassing absentee ballots in Election Law § 9-209 nine months after it was enacted, after the process was in effect for two primary elections and several special elections, and at the time that canvassing of absentee ballots using the new process began in the 2022 general election. The amendment to Election Law § 8-400 was enacted in 2020 and has been in effect for multiple general, primary and special elections but petitioners did not challenge the statute until nine months after the sunset clause was extended and after the mailing of absentee ballots had already begun. … In short, petitioners delayed too long in bringing this proceeding/action. To the extent that petitioners contend that they did not bring the challenges until they were ripe, the action constitutes facial challenges to the statutes, implicating their text, not their applications, and, therefore, the action was ripe at the time of the enactment of the statutes … . Matter of Amedure v State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 06096, Third Dept 11-1-22

Practice Point: The petitioners didn’t bring this challenge to new provisions in the Election Law addressing the canvassing of absentee ballots until nine months after enactment and after the new process had been used several elections. The petition was precluded by the doctrine of laches.

 

,

THE RECEIVER APPOINTED TO CONTROL PROPERTY INVOLVED IN AN OWNERSHIP DISPUTE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OWNER IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT). ​

​The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the receiver, appointed to take control of two properties the ownership of which is in dispute, should have been substituted as the representative owner of the property in a slip and fall case:

Generally, a temporary receiver appointed pursuant to CPLR article 64 “is a person appointed by the court to take control of designated property and see to its care and preservation during litigation” … . Pertinent here, the appointment order authorized the receiver “to immediately take charge and enter possession of the properties,” and empowered the receiver to “act as manager and landlord of the properties.” Correspondingly, the receiver was “authorized and obligated to keep the properties insured against loss by damage of fire . . . and to procure such . . . other insurance as may be reasonably necessary.” Given these directives, we cannot agree with Supreme Court’s assessment that the receiver was accorded only a limited role that did not include property maintenance. To the contrary, the receiver was charged with both the authority and responsibility to assume control over the properties. Pursuant to CPLR 1017, “[i]f a receiver is appointed for a party . . . the court shall order substitution of the proper parties.” That is the situation here. By the court’s directive, responsibility over the management of the properties was passed from the disputing owners to the receiver … . As such, the receiver should have been substituted as the representative owner of the … property … . Wen Mei Lu v Wen Ying Gamba, 2022 NY Slip Op 06037, Second Dept 10-27-22

Practice Point: Here a receiver was appointed to control properties involved in an ownership dispute. The receiver should have been substituted as a representative owner in a slip and fall case.

 

,

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT CHARGE DEFENDANT WITH CREATING AND FAILING TO REGISTER AN INTERNET IDENTIFIER, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE CORRECTION LAW; INSTEAD, THE SCI CHARGED DEFENDANT WITH FAILURE TO REGISTER A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT, WHICH DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CORRECTION LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the superior court information (SCI) determined that the SCI did not charge defendant with an violation of Correction Law section 168-a (18). The statute requires a sex offender to register the creation of an “Internet identifier.” But the SCI charged defendant with creating a Facebook account, which is not prohibited:

… [T]he SCI did not charge defendant with failing to register or report a change in an Internet identifier; instead, defendant was solely charged with failing to report a change in Internet status in violation of Correction Law § 168-f (4). Even assuming, without deciding, that the generalized language employed — failing to report a change in Internet status — coupled with the statutory reference otherwise would be sufficient to allege the material elements of the crime charged … , such reference was effectively negated “by the inclusion of conduct that [did] not constitute the crime charged” … — namely, “establishing a Facebook account.”

The governing statutes were written, and have been interpreted, narrowly. It has been clearly established “that the existence of a Facebook account — as opposed to the Internet identifiers a sex offender may use to access Facebook or interact with other users on Facebook — need not be disclosed to DCJS [Division of Criminal Justice Services] pursuant to Correction Law § 168-f (4)” … . Hence, the mere fact that defendant established a Facebook account was not an occurrence that defendant was required to report to DCJS, and his failure to do so did not constitute a violation of Correction Law § 168-f (4) … . * * *

… [T]he People did not charge defendant with failing to register an Internet identifier; they charged him with failing to report a change in Internet status, i.e., “establishing a Facebook account.” Stated differently, instead of “correctly alleg[ing] that the omission constituting the offense was [defendant’s] failure to register an Internet identifier used by him to access and identify himself on the Facebook account that he created and maintained, [the SCI] improperly premise[d] the charge on his failure to register the Facebook account itself” … . People v Ferretti, 2022 NY Slip Op 06030, Third Dept 10-27-22

Practice Point: Here the superior court information (SCI) did not charge defendant with an offense. If the SCI had charged defendant with failing to register an Internet identifier, the SCI would have charged an offense. Bu the SCI only charged defendant with failing to register a Facebook account, which is not an offense.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE INDICATED VISITATION WITH FATHER WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; FATHER’S PETITION FOR VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence indicated visitation with father would not be in the best interests of the child and his petition for visitation should not have been granted:

… [I]t is undisputed that the father has not lived with the child in over a decade and has only infrequently visited the child due to, among other things, his moving out of the area and frequently relocating around the United States. The father also made no effort to seek a formal award of visitation until 2019, more than seven years after the issuance of the 2012 custody order and over two years after he had last seen the child. This failure by the father to seek a visitation order or otherwise “avail himself . . . of opportunities for visitation over a lengthy period of time is appropriately taken into account in considering whether visitation is appropriate” … .

… [T]he mother testified as to how the father behaved in an irresponsible and harmful manner on the occasions when he did interact with the child and, although the father disputed those claims, we defer to Family Court’s assessment that the father’s testimony was not credible … . * * * [T]he attorney for the child confirmed to Family Court, and now advises us, that the teenage child is upset by interactions with the father for a variety of reasons and does not wish to see him. The child’s preference to have no in-person contact with the father is not dispositive, but is entitled to “considerable weight” given the child’s age … . Matter of Ajmal I. v LaToya J., 2022 NY Slip Op 05912, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Although visitation with a parent is generally considered to be in the child’s best interests, here father’s years-long lack of contact with the child, misbehavior during prior contact, and the child’s opposition to visitation, demonstrated visitation with father was not in the child’s best interests. The petition for visitation should not have been granted.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF-SELLER MAY HAVE THOUGHT THE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY SHE SOLD WAS SMALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS, DEFENDANT-BUYER WAS NEVER UNDER THAT IMPRESSION; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE DEAL SHOULD BE RESCINDED BASED ON MUTUAL MISTAKE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, determined the plaintiff-seller of real property did not demonstrate the sale should be rescinded based upon mutual mistake. Plaintiff alleged she intended to transfer 20 acres but the deed described a 39-acre parcel. The parcel, however, was described in feet, not acres, and defendant was never under the impression the parcel was 20 acres in size. There was no “mutual mistake:”

… [E]ven if plaintiff misunderstood the size of the parcel she ultimately conveyed in the corrected deed, she was bound by the contents of a deed she executed absent fraud or other wrongdoing by defendant that she does not suggest occurred, and any unilateral mistake on her part as to the acreage being conveyed by it “resulted from [her] negligence in failing to take the means readily accessible of checking” its property description … . Williams v Sowle, 2022 NY Slip Op 05914, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff-seller may have thought the parcel of land she sold to defendant was smaller than it actually was. But defendant was never under that impression. Therefore the sale could not be rescinded based upon “mutual mistake.”

 

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