Condominium boards.

In reviewing a condominium board's actions, courts should apply the business judgment rule, under which the court's inquiry is limited to whether the board acted within the scope of its authority under the by-laws and whether the action was taken in good faith to further a legitimate interest of the condominium. Absent a showing of fraud, self-dealing, or unconscionability, the court will not inquire as to the wisdom or soundness of the business decision.

Board of Mgrs. of Oceanview Condominium v. Riccardi, NY Slip Op 03806 (2d Dep't July 17, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Mortgage law.

A mortgagee's interest in the property is protected unless it has notice of a previous fraud affecting the title of its grantor. The mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts 'that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue. A mortgagee who fails to make such an inquiry is not a bona fide encumbrancer for value. The question of what constitutes fair consideration is generally one of fact, to be determined under the circumstances of the particular case.

Baldeo v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, NY Slip Op 03805 (2d Dep't July 17, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

When seeking a CPLR 3211 dismissal, a defendant can submit evidence, such as affidavits or testimony, attacking a well-pleaded cognizable claim.  Such submission change the CPLR 3211 inquiry from whether the pleader has stated a cause of action to whether the pleader has a cause of action amenable to relief, or whether the defendant has a complete defense to the claims. Any such evidence must conclusively establish, as a matter of law, a defense to the plaintiff's claims.

Holder v. Jacob, NY Slip Op[ 03864 (1st Dep't July 18, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

The defendant's motion to dismiss the causes of action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) is granted. The asset purchase agreement constituted a voluntary prospective arrangement for the splitting of fees in violation of the Education Law because it required the defendant to pay the plaintiff a percentage of revenue generated by the plaintiff's practice and, under certain conditions, the defendant's own separate dental practice. A party to an illegal contract cannot ask a court of law to help him carry out an illegal object. Neither can the party plead or prove in any court a case in which setting forth or proving the claim would reveal its illegal purpose. 

Advanced Dental of Ardsley, PLLC v. Brown, NY Slip Op 03804 (2d Dep't July 17, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Vacating a default.

A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon a default in opposing a motion must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion. A conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of ill health is not a reasonable excuse.  The absence of a reasonable excuse for the default renders it unnecessary to determine whether the movant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion.

Fuchs-Goren v. Goren, NY Slip Op 03736 (2d Dep't July 10, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

A contract is to be construed in accordance with the intent of the parties, and the best evidence of their intent is what they express in their written contract. Clear, complete, and unambiguous contractual terms are to be enforced according to their plain meaning, and every aspect of the contract must be accorded meaning and effect. Where the contract was negotiated and relied upon by experienced, sophisticated business actors represented by counsel, the parties are entitled to the commercial certainty that flows from the enforcement of the plain meaning of their unambiguous agreement.

Iberdrola Energy Projects v. Oaktree Capital Mgt. L.P., NY Slip Op 03798 (1st Dep't July 11, 2024)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3215(c).

Pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), "[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed." When an action is subject to a mandatory settlement conference, pursuant to CPLR 3408), motions shall be held in abeyance while conferences are held and the one-year deadline imposed by CPLR 3215(c) is tolled.

Federal Nat. Mtge. Assn. v. Vivenzio, NY Slip Op 03734 (2d Dep't July 10, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Medical malpractice.

The essential elements of a medical malpractice cause of action are (1) a deviation or departure from accepted medical practice, and (2) evidence that such departure was a proximate cause of injury. When moving for summary judgment, the defendant .has the burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby. In order to sustain this burden, the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiff's bill of particulars. Then, it is the plaintiff's burden to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the element or elements on which the defendant has made its prima facie showing.

Summary judgment is not appropriate where the parties adduce conflicting expert opinions. However, general and conclusory allegations of malpractice, unsupported by competent evidence tending to establish the essential elements, are insufficient to defeat a defendant physician's summary judgment motion. The plaintiff's expert must specifically address the defense expert's allegations.

Fairchild v. Lerner, NY Slip Op 03733 (2d Dep't July 10, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Foreclosure and sale.

A judgment of foreclosure and sale entered against a defendant is final as to all questions at issue between the parties, and concludes all matters of defense which were or might have been litigated in the foreclosure action. Here, the entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale bars consideration of the issues raised by the defendant, since those issues either were raised or could have been raised during the pendency of the action.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., v. Matheson, NY Slip Op 03732 (2d Dep't July 10, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of an implied contract and unjust enrichment. The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (3), and (7) to dismiss the complaint. By order dated June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) for lack of standing and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment.

On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that the Supreme Court improperly granted the branch of the motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action. However, the plaintiff advances no arguments concerning that portion of the order which granted that branch of the motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) for lack of standing. As the plaintiff does not challenge the court's determination that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert a cause of action sounding in unjust enrichment, the plaintiff's contention that the cause of action was not subject to dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) is academic. The Appellate Division affirms the order insofar as appealed from without reaching the plaintiff's arguments concerning CPLR 3211(a)(7).

AA Med., P.C. v. Employee Med. Health Plan of Suffolk County, NY Slip Op 03722 (2d Dep't July 10, 2024)

Here is the decision.

Premises liabiliity.

A possessor of real property is under a duty to maintain reasonable security measures to protect those lawfully on the premises from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. In order to establish foreseeability, there is no requirement that the past experience of criminal activity be of the same type as that to which the plaintiff was subjected. However, the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the location of the incident. Without evidentiary proof of notice of prior criminal activity, the owner's duty reasonably to protect those using the premises from such activity never arises.

Lazarus v. Wildlife Preserves, Inc., NY Slip Op 03685 (2d Dep't July 3, 2024)

Here is the decision.