A judgment of foreclosure and sale.

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting copies of the original note, mortgage, and loan modification, and evidence of the borrower's default in payment. Defendant failed to raise an issue of fact, as the unrecorded discharge of mortgage upon which defendant relies does not insulate a subsequent purchaser from prior claims, when the existence of such claims was apparent from the face of the record. If defendant had reviewed the public record, as required, it would have found that the purported discharge of mortgage had never been entered or recorded and that the original mortgage was still recorded.

US Bank NA v. 532 W. 187 LLC, NY Slip Op 07211 (1st Dep't December 20, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Spoliation of evidence.

A party seeking a sanction for spoliation must demonstrate that the party with control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind; and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party's position such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support the claim or defense. 

Blackstock v. AVR Crossroads, LLC, NY Slip Op 07179 (1st Dep't December 20, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Liquidated damages.

Liquidated damages constitute the compensation which should be paid in order to satisfy any loss or injury flowing from a breach of a contract. A liquidated damages provision will be sustained if, at the time of the contract, the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation, and the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss.  Whether the provision is an unenforceable penalty is a question of law for the court. The party seeking to avoid liquidated damages has the burden to prove that they are an unenforceable penalty.  In the absence of any countervailing public policy concerns, freedom of contract prevails in an arm's length transaction between sophisticated parties.

Seymour v. Hovnanian, NY Slip Op 07172 (1st Dep't December 15, 2022)

Here is the decision.

A cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

The complaint will survive dismissal if it alleges, with sufficient particularity, (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by that misconduct, pursuant to CPLR 3016[b].

Board of Mgrs. of Van Wyck Glen Condominium v. Van Wyck at Merritt Park Homeowners Assn., Inc., NY Slip Op 07044 (2d Dep't December 14, 2022)

Here is the decision.

The standard on summary judgment.

A motion for summary judgment will not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility. Where the papers show that there are triable issues of fact, the motion will be denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition.

Baab v. HP, Inc., NY Slip Op 07042 (2d Dep't December 14, 2022)

Here is the decision.

A claim for unlawful termination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law.

A complaint can survive dismissal if the plaintiff produces some evidence to suggest that at least one of the defendant's reason for the termination of employment was false, misleading, or incomplete. Here, the plaintiff failed to meet the standard. The general principle that the statute must be construed broadly in favor of plaintiffs is not a substitute for evidence.

Woolf v. Bloomberg L.P., NY Slp Op 07174 (1st Dep't December 15, 2022)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3213.

The motion court properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to enforce its guaranty against defendants as guarantors of the lease with the nonparty tenant, as plaintiff established the existence of the guaranty, the underlying debt, and the guarantor's failure to perform under the guaranty.

122 E. 42nd St., LLC v. Scharf, NY Slip Op 07141 (1st Dep't December 15, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Vacatur.

A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action,  Here, the defendant failed to provide a detailed and credible explanation for the default. Instead, the defendant submitted only an affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer averring that the defendant's agent for process had emailed the summons and complaint to the servicer, and the complaint had been misrouted in the servicer's email system. That conclusory and nondetailed allegation does not constitute a reasonable excuse warranting vacatur of the default. Accordingly, is not necessary to determine whether the defendant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action.

259 Milford, LLC v. FV-1, Inc., NY Slip Op 06898 (2d Dep't December 7, 2022)

Here is the decision.

Article 78.

The complaint seeks to challenge the suspension of plaintiffs' New York State driving privileges as arbitrary and capricious on grounds that they were not properly notified of the Drivers Responsibility Assessment (DRA) imposed on them. Because plaintiffs' claims are cognizable under CPLR article 78, they are time-barred by the four-month statute of limitations of CPLR 217[1]. The fact that plaintiffs plead constitutional violations is to no effect, as such claims can be brought in an article 78 proceeding.

Ugo-Alum v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., NY Slip Op 07018 (1st Dep't December 8 2022)

Here is the decision.