Standing in a mortgage foreclosure action.

The plaintiff has standing where it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced. Either a written assignment of the underlying note or its physical delivery prior to the commencement of the action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident. Where, as here, the plaintiff's standing is placed in issue by the defendant's answer, the plaintiff must prove its standing.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Deas, NY Slip Op 07536 (2d Dep't December 29, 2021)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3216.

The court may dismiss a complaint for want of prosecution after the plaintiff is served with a written notice to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days, and stating that noncompliance will serve as the basis for a motion to dismiss. If the plaintiff fails to comply, the court may grant the motion unless the plaintiff shows a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action. The statute is extremely forgiving, in that it does not require, but merely authorizes, the court to dismiss an action based on the plaintiff's unreasonable neglect to proceed.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Nicolosi, NY Slip Op 07435 (2d Dep't December 29, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Termination of an at-will employee.

New York does not recognize the tort of wrongful discharge of an at-will employee. Here, the claims for defamation and tortious interference with business relations are so closely related to the plaintiff's termination that they do not sound as distinct causes of action. Those claims are dismissed because a plaintiff cannot subvert the at-will rule by casting the cause of action as a separate tort. 

Winiarski v. Butler, NY Slip Op 07534 (1st Dep't December 28, 2021)

Here is the decision.

The limitations period in a boundary dispute.

A boundary dispute over a party's rights to property is an action seeking to remove a cloud on title, which is an equitable remedy. The action is governed by the 10-year statute of limitations where the owner is out of possession. However, where, as here, the owner is in possession, the right of action to remove a cloud on title is a continuous one accruing from day to day, and this right is not barred by the statute of limitations until the cloud is continued without interruption for a length of time sufficient to effect a change of title as a matter of law.

Liberty Sq. Realty Corp. v. The Doe Fund, Inc., NY Slip Op 07082 (1st Dep't December 21, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Article 78 proceedings.

The court's inquiry is limited to the question of whether the arbiter's determination is arbitrary, capricious, or lacking a rational basis.

Matter of Prismatic Dev. Corp. v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 07072 (1st Dep't December 16, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Bills of particulars.

What the plaintiff styles as a supplemental bill of particulars asserting a new theory of liability is actually an amended bill of particulars. It is a nullity because it was served after note of issue, after defendant filed its summary judgment motion, and without leave of court.

Stovall v. Lenox Hill Hosp., NY Slip Op 07004 (1st Dep't December 16, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Common-law indemnification.

A party who is held vicariously liable for another party's negligence may seek to recover damages from the wrongdoer. 

Cobblestone Foods, LLC v. Branded Concept Dev., Inc., NY Slip Op 06984 (2d Dep't December 15, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Statutory interpretation.

The primary consideration is to discern and give effect to the Legislature's intention, and the statutory text is the surest indicator of legislative intent. Courts should construe unambiguous language so as to give effect to its plain meaning. When the plain language of the statute is precise and unambiguous, it is determinative.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kessler, NY Slip Op 06979 (2d Dep't December 15, 2021)

Here is the decision.

Civil usury.

A person may not charge, take, or receive any money as interest on a loan at a rate exceeding the maximum permissible interest rate of 16% per year. A usurious contract is void and relieves the borrower of the obligation to repay principal and interest thereon.

Adler v. Marzario, NY Slip Op 06977 (2d Dep't December 15, 2021)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 2221[e][2].

A motion for leave to renew will be denied where the purported new facts are not material and would not change the prior determination.

Casillas-Reyes v. John, NY Slip Op 06943 (1st Dep't December 14, 2021)

Here is the decision.