The limitations period on a foreclosure action.

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations, pursuant to CPLR 213[4]. Where the mortgage is payable in installments, there are separate causes of action for each installment accrued, and the limitations period begins to run on the due-date of each installment. The limitations period begins to run on the entire debt when the mortgagee or its predecessor elects to accelerate the mortgage. The notice of acceleration must be clear and unequivocal, and, once the debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the limitations period begins to run on the entire debt.

Ditech Fin., LLC v. Reiss, NY Slip Op 06209 (2d Dep't August 21, 2019

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment motions.

In opposing the motion, a plaintiff cannot raise for the first time a new or materially different theory of recovery from those pleaded in the complaint and the bill of particulars.

Anonymous v. Gleason, NY Slip Op 06207 (2d Dep't August 21, 2019)

Here is the decision.

General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(1).

An alleged oral agreement which by its terms cannot be performed within one year is unenforceable.

Martin Greenfield Clothiers, Ltd. v. Brooks Bros. Group, Inc.,  NY Slip Op 06225 (2d Dep't August 22, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3212(f).

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is not premature where the defendant fails to offer an evidentiary basis to suggest that additional discovery may lead to relevant evidence, or that facts essential to opposing the motion are exclusively within the plaintiff's knowledge and control.

Rodriguez-Garcia v. Bobby's Bus Co., Inc., NY Slip Op 06221 (2d Dep't August 21, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 510(1).

The statute requires the movant's affirmative showing that the plaintiff's choice of venue is improper. Absent such a showing, the court may not pass upon the propriety of the choice of venue proposed by the defendant.

Lividini v. Goldstein, NY Slip Op 06150 (1st Dep't August 20, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 1021.

A motion for substitution must be made within a reasonable time. In deciding the reasonability of the timing, a court will consider the diligence of the party seeking substitution, the prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or the defense has potential merit.

Petion v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., NY Slip Op 06107 (2d Dep't August 7, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3025(b).

Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted, in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, and unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. The determination whether to grant leave is within the Supreme Court's broad discretion, and the exercise of that discretion will not be lightly disturbed on appeal.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Confino, NY Slip Op 06081 (2d Dep't August 7, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 321.

The filing of a notice of appearance in an action by a party's counsel serves as a waiver of any objection to personal jurisdiction in the absence of either the service of an answer which raises a jurisdictional objection, or a motion to dismiss, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Mid-Island Mtge. Corp. v. Johnson, NY Slip Op 06081 (2d Dep't August 7, 2019)

Here is the decision.

CPLR 3102(c).

Disclosure to aid in bringing an action authorizes discovery to allow a plaintiff to frame the complaint and to obtain the identity of the prospective defendants. Pre-action disclosure is not allowed after commencement of the action for which the identities are sought.

Weitzman v. Long Beach City Sch. Dist., NY Slip Op 06092 (2d Dep't August 7, 2019)

Here is the decision.

A slip and fall action.

Where the defendant does not establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the burden never shifts to the plaintiff to establish how long the allegedly hazardous condition existed.

Carela v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 06140 (1st Dep't August 13, 2019)

Here is the decision.

Labor Law § 240.

In order to invoke the statute, an appropriate safety device must be lacking or defective, thereby exposing workers to elevation-related risks, and it must have proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. Here, plaintiff testified that he fell while, on his own volition, trying to climb the frame of a non-defective scaffold, which does not establish Labor Law § 240 liability.

Biaca-Neto v. Boston Rd. II Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., NY Slip Op 06142 (1st Dep't August 13, 2019)

Here is the decision.