You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

THE 202O AMENDMENT TO CPL 30.30 WHICH ALLOWS AN APPEAL ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE AFTER A GUILTY PLEA DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, determined the 2020 amendment to Criminal Procedure Law 30.30 which allows an appeal alleging the violation of the speedy trial statute after a guilty plea does not apply retroactively:

At the time of defendant’s plea in November 2017 and his sentencing in April 2018, it was settled law that a guilty plea forfeited a defendant’s right to claim that the trial court erred in denying his or her CPL 30.30 speedy trial motion … . However, CPL 30.30 (6), which was enacted as part of an omnibus budget bill in April 2019 and became effective on January 1, 2020 … , provides that “[a]n order finally denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to [CPL 30.30 (1)] shall be reviewable upon an appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction notwithstanding the fact that such judgment is entered upon a plea of guilty.” * * *

“… [I]t is a bedrock rule of law that, absent an unambiguous statement of legislative intent, statutes that revive time-barred claims if applied retroactively will not be construed to have that effect” … . People v Duggins, 2021 NY Slip Op 00336, Third Dept 1-21-21

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING OF NEGLECT ON MOTHER’S PART (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support a finding of neglect on the part of mother (respondent). Although mother’s husband (Bradley CC.) had been violent on two occasions, the children did not witness the incidents:

Respondent’s handling of the domestic abuse and Bradley CC.’s alcohol and substance misuse gave petitioner reasonable cause for concern. Indeed, the evidence established that respondent — a recovering heroin addict — was aware that Bradley CC. had a substance and alcohol abuse problem but failed to acknowledge — or minimized — the impact that such problem was having or could have on her and the children. Respondent admitted to coping with the circumstances by habitually using marihuana, but was resistant to treatment and mental health counseling and failed to recognize the problematic nature of her chosen coping mechanism, particularly given her history of addiction. Despite the concern that respondent was not dealing with the circumstances in a healthy manner, there was no evidence that she used marihuana in the presence of the children or that her usage had ever rendered her unable to care for the children … . While engaged with preventative services with petitioner, respondent seemingly understood the potential impact that Bradley CC.’s drinking could have on the children and agreed to a safety plan stating that he was not to be left alone to care for the children. … * * *

Respondent’s failings … do not rise to such a level to support the conclusion that her actions and inactions actually impaired the children’s physical, mental or emotional conditions or placed the children at imminent risk of such impairment … . Matter of Lexie CC. (Liane CC.), 2021 NY Slip Op 00342, Third Dept 1-21-21

 

,

CPLR 205 (A), WHICH ALLOWS AN ACTION TO BE REFILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL, DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTIONS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER WHICH STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL THE ORDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined CPLR 205 (a), which allows an action to be refiled within six months of dismissal under certain conditions, does not apply to motions. Here the plaintiff sought to bring a second motion for a deficiency judgment pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1371 after the first was deemed untimely because it was not served within the 90-day time-frame. The dissenter argued the defendants were not aggrieved by the lower court’s order which stayed the proceedings for further submissions and therefore could not appeal:

As an initial matter, plaintiff contends that, because Supreme Court did not ultimately rule on the relief sought — namely a deficiency judgment — and instead issued a stay to allow further submissions from the parties, defendants are not aggrieved by the ruling and the appeal should be dismissed. … We disagree. A party is aggrieved when the court denies the relief it requested or grants relief, in whole or in part, against a party who had opposed the relief … . Here, defendants opposed plaintiff’s second motion for a deficiency judgment as untimely. Had Supreme Court agreed, the case would have been dismissed outright, and defendants would have been relieved of any deficiency judgment. Instead, they continue to be involved in litigation and remain exposed to the potential of said judgment and the financial consequences attendant thereto. Defendants are therefore clearly aggrieved by the finding of timeliness by Supreme Court. * * *

… [P]laintiff urges this Court to find the second motion timely by applying CPLR 205 (a), allowing it to file the second motion six months after the denial of the first motion. … Here, the statute provides that “[i]f an action is timely commenced and is terminated in any other manner than by a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits, the plaintiff . . . may commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences within six months after the termination provided that the new action would have been timely commenced at the time of commencement of the prior action” … . An action is defined as “a civil or criminal judicial proceeding” … . CPLR 105 defines an action to include a special proceeding, whereas a motion is defined as “an application for an order” (CPLR 2211). RPAPL 1371 (2) and (3) expressly direct that a motion for a deficiency judgment be made. Motions are not subject to the tolling provision of CPLR 205 (a). Had the Legislature intended to include motions in CPLR 205 (a), it could have done so and its failure to do so, is presumed to be intentional … . Trustco Bank v The Preserve Dev. Group Co., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00350, Third Dept 1-21-21

 

, , ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY AND NEGLECT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM AN INCIDENT DURING A BRIEF VISIT TO TENNESSEE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court and ordering new proceedings in front of a different judge, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined Family Court completely mishandled this custody matter which involved neglect proceedings in Tennessee stemming from an incident during the family’s brief visit there. Family Court had refused to exercise jurisdiction over the matter on inconvenient-forum grounds. On appeal, all parties agreed Family Court had committed reversible errors:

… [T]here was no dispute that the children and their respective parents/custodian had lived in New York for at least six consecutive months prior to the April 2019 commencement of the neglect proceeding in Tennessee, thereby making New York the children’s home state … . Thus, pursuant to the UCCJEA, Family Court had jurisdiction over the neglect proceeding commenced in Tennessee … . * * *

The record irrefutably reflects that the children came into emergency care in Tennessee during a brief visit to the state and that, prior to entering care, they had not resided in Tennessee. The children’s respective parents/legal custodian reside in New York, as does a half sibling of one of the children. Roughly 850 miles separate the Tennessee court and Chemung County, and the parties have limited financial means to travel to Tennessee to participate in court proceedings or to visit with the children. Additionally, with the exception of DSS, which did not provide an appropriate basis in law for its objection, all parties and the Tennessee court agreed that Family Court should exercise jurisdiction over the dispositional phase of the neglect proceeding. Significantly, evidence regarding the children’s best interests and the feasibility of reunifying them with their respective parents and/or petitioner is in New York, including proof relating to any remedial and rehabilitative services offered to and engaged in by the mother and Jamie A. Any testimony required from witnesses located in Tennessee can be taken by phone. Matter of Diana XX v Nicole YY, 2021 NY Slip Op 00352, Third Dept 1-21-21

 

,

THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND LEGISLATION PROHIBITING EVICTIONS DURING THE PANDEMIC APPLIED TO A HOLDOVER TENANT WHO HAD ENTERED AN AGREEMENT TO VACATE THE APARTMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, determined the Executive Orders and legislation prohibiting evictions during the COVID pandemic precluded the eviction of a holdover tenant based upon an agreement by the tenant to vacate the apartment:

On August 27, 2020, petitioner commenced a summary eviction proceeding seeking a warrant of eviction to remove respondents from the premises (see RPAPL 711 [1]). At an appearance before Supreme Court on September 17, 2020, the parties, with the assistance of counsel, reached an agreement in which respondents agreed to vacate the premises on or before October 2, 2020. Pursuant to the agreement, the court issued a warrant of eviction, effective October 3, 2020, to be executed if respondents failed to vacate. Respondents remained on the premises and, on October 5, 2020, the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office, in accordance with the warrant, served respondents a 14-day notice indicating that the eviction would take place on October 21, 2020. After counsel for respondent Kaia Humphrey (hereinafter respondent) contacted the County Attorney’s office regarding the suspension of evictions via a new executive order issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo, petitioner moved for an order seeking, among other things, enforcement of the parties’ agreement to vacate and of the warrant of eviction. Following a virtual appearance on October 20, 2020, Supreme Court granted petitioner’s motion and ordered enforcement of the warrant of eviction. Respondent appeals. * * *

Because these executive orders prohibit enforcement of residential evictions, without any exceptions for holdover proceedings or warrants issued based on stipulations, Supreme Court was precluded from ordering enforcement of the warrant to evict respondents. Further executive orders have extended the stay on enforcements to December 3, 2020 … . …

Furthermore, on December 28, 2020, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 … . That act, which was effective immediately … , allows tenants to file a hardship declaration, which will prevent an eviction until at least May 1, 2021 … . Matter of Cabrera v Humphrey, 2021 NY Slip Op 00358, Third Dept 1-21-21

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE GROUND FOR SUPPRESSION OF A SHOTGUN AND SHOTGUN SHELL RELIED ON BY COUNTY COURT; ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE RAISED OTHER GROUNDS FOR JUSTIFICATION OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THOSE GROUNDS CANNOT BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL BECAUSE COUNTY COURT DID NOT RULE ON THEM; MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE PEOPLE’S OTHER ARGUMENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the motion to suppress the shotgun and shotgun shell should have been granted on the ground raised on appeal. The People raised other grounds for suppression on appeal. The Third Department noted it cannot consider grounds for suppression on which the motion court did not rule on and remitted the matter for consideration of the other grounds for suppression raised by the People:

County Court found that the shotgun shell was discovered on defendant’s person during a limited protective pat-down search of defendant, which then provided law enforcement with probable cause to search the vehicle. However, this finding is not supported by the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, which demonstrated that the search of the vehicle actually preceded the search of defendant’s person and discovery of the shotgun shell. Although the People raised other arguments that could potentially justify the search of the vehicle and defendant’s person, this Court is statutorily restricted from considering issues not ruled upon by the trial court … .  We are therefore constrained to reverse the denial of defendant’s suppression motion. Accordingly, we will hold the appeal in abeyance and remit the matter to County Court to review the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, consider any alternate bases to suppress the physical evidence and render a new determination on defendant’s motion … . People v Kabia, 2021 NY Slip Op 00209, Third Dept 1-14-21

 

,

THE TRAFFIC STOP AND CANINE SEARCH WERE JUSTIFIED; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE CANINE SEARCH WAS NOT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the traffic stop was valid and the extended detention for a canine search was justified. The dissent argued the canine search was not justified:

The trooper testified that it was fully dark at the time of the stop and that he and defendant had their vehicles’ headlights on, as did other vehicles passing on the roadway. When the trooper turned off his headlights briefly to check the license plate light, he observed that it did not illuminate the plate. Thus, it was “objectively reasonable” for the trooper to conclude that the requisite visibility did not exist and that a traffic violation had been committed … .  Additionally, the trooper was entitled to rely upon the investigator’s previous observation that defendant was driving without a seatbelt — a separate traffic violation that also provided probable cause for the stop … .

… [T]he trooper’s observations of defendant engaging in behaviors commonly seen in outdoor drug transactions at a location known for such activity, his “slow roll response” and furtive movements after the trooper initiated the stop and his evasive, inconsistent answers to the trooper’s questions created a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot … . Thus, the trooper properly extended the stop beyond its initial justification and conducted the canine search — which, in any event, took place only nine minutes after the initial stop and, according to the trooper, was completed in less than a minute … . People v Blandford, 2021 NY Slip Op 00058, Third Dept 1-7-21

 

, , ,

THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY STAY WAS LIFTED; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED; DISAGREEING WITH THE 2ND DEPARTMENT, THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO INTERPOSE A COUNTERCLAIM TO CANCEL THE MORTGAGE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the debt was accelerated when the automatic bankruptcy stay was lifted. Therefore the foreclosure action was untimely and the mortgage was properly cancelled pursuant to RPAP 1501:

… [T]he mortgage was accelerated on December 8, 2011, the date on which the bankruptcy court issued the order lifting the automatic bankruptcy stay as to plaintiff’s predecessor in interest and its assignees and/or successors in interest … . By filing a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding and shortly thereafter seeking affirmative relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay, plaintiff’s predecessor in interest communicated a clear and unequivocal intent to accelerate the entire mortgage debt … . …

Supreme Court did not err in discharging and canceling the mortgage. RPAPL 1501 (4) states, as relevant here, that, where the statute of limitations period for the commencement of a mortgage foreclosure action has expired, “any person having an estate or interest in the real property subject to such encumbrance may maintain an action . . . to secure the cancellation and discharge of record of such encumbrance, and to adjudge the estate or interest of the plaintiff in such real property to be free therefrom” … . Contrary to the Second Department, we do not read RPAPL 1501 (4) as stating that the cancellation and discharge of a mortgage can only be obtained by commencing an action or interposing a counterclaim for such relief … .

… [D]efendants did not interpose a counterclaim seeking to discharge and cancel the mortgage. However, defendants requested, in their answer, dismissal of the complaint and such “other and further relief as [Supreme Court] deem[ed] just and equitable” and thereafter specifically requested in their cross motion that the mortgage be discharged and canceled. MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Wentworth, 2021 NY Slip Op 00064, Third Dept 1-7-21

 

, ,

CPLR 204(A) IN CONJUNCTION WITH RPAPL 1301(3) TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHILE THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING, FROM 2010 TO 2013, RENDERING THE SECOND FORECLOSURE ACTION IN 2017 TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, reversing Supreme Court, determined the instant foreclosure action was not time barred because CPLR 204(a) in conjunction with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1301(3) prohibited bringing the instant action while the first action was pending:

In September 2003, defendant, in exchange for a loan to purchase a residence, executed a note secured by a mortgage on that real property. The note and mortgage were later assigned to plaintiff. After defendant failed to make some payments, on May 5, 2010 plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action against defendant, which Supreme Court (Drago, J.) dismissed on October 30, 2013 for failure to prosecute. In April 2015, Supreme Court (Buchannan, J.) denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal. In 2017, plaintiff commenced a second foreclosure action. * * *

CPLR 204 (a) provides that, “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” * * *

The statute that plaintiff relies on, in conjunction with CPLR 204 (a), is RPAPL 1301 (3), which provides that, while an action for a mortgage debt “is pending or after final judgment for the plaintiff therein, no other action shall be commenced or maintained to recover any part of the mortgage debt, without leave of the court in which the former action was brought.” The purpose of RPAPL 1301 (3) is “to shield the mortgagor from the expense and annoyance of two independent actions at the same time with reference to the same debt … . … [P]laintiff established that the statute was tolled during the pendency of the first foreclosure action, from May 2010 to October 2013. Citimortgage, Inc. v Ramirez, 2020 NY Slip Op 07970, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECTLY NAME THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 305(C) AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend to complaint to reflect the correct name of the defendant should have been granted:

In September 2016, plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell in the bathroom of a McDonald’s restaurant located in the Town of Williamson, Wayne County. In August 2019, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant to recover for the injuries that he sustained. Defendant answered, asserting, among other affirmative defenses, a lack of personal jurisdiction and that she is not a proper party because she does not own, operate, maintain or control the business in which plaintiff was allegedly injured. Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds, contending that “Nancyone, Inc.,” a New York corporation for which defendant is a corporate officer, owned and operated the subject McDonald’s restaurant and that it had not been properly served with the summons and complaint prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. …

Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of his cross motion that sought leave to amend his complaint pursuant to CPLR 305 (c). We agree. As relevant here, “[i]f a defendant has been misnamed in the caption of the summons and complaint, but has nonetheless been properly served within the limitations period, amendment of the summons and complaint should be allowed in the absence of demonstrated prejudice to a substantial right” … . Kachadourian v Wilkes, 2020 NY Slip Op 07972, Third Dept 12-24-20

 

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