You are here: / / EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDE...

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had properly considered an affidavit submitted with the bank’s reply papers in a mortgage foreclosure action. In the answering papers, appellant claimed that the bank did not properly serve notices of default. In the reply papers, the bank submitted an affidavit demonstrating proper service. The court explained when evidence submitted in reply papers can be considered:

Although a party moving for summary judgement cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply … , and generally, evidence submitted for the first time in reply papers should be disregarded by the court … , exceptions to the rule arise when the evidence submitted is in response to allegations raised for the first time in the opposition papers … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Espinal, 2015 NY Slip Op 09242,, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EVIDENCE IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/REPLY PAPERS (EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED)

You might also like
CERTAIN DISCOVERY DEMANDS IN THIS NEGLIGENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ON BEHALF OF A FORMER RESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Fact that a Condition May Be Open and Obvious Does Not Eliminate Property Owner’s Duty to Keep Premises Reasonably Safe
NEW YORK IS A “PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM” JURISDICTION; HERE COUNTERCLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS LIABLE UNDER A GRATUITOUS BAILMENT THEORY FOR DESTROYED GOODS; PROPER WAY TO CALCULATE DAMAGES FOR THE DESTROYED GOODS UNDER A CONTRACT THEORY EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION WITH PROOF AN ACT OR OMISSION DECREASED THE CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO TIMELY DETECT THE PRESENCE OF CANCER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT ENTITLED TO FULL NAMES OF ALL PERSONS WHOSE INITIALS APPEAR ON A DNA LAB REPORT; WRIT OF PROHIBITION ISSUED RE: JUDGE WHO ORDERED DISCLOSURE.
TRIAL COURT MAY NOT SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 ON A GROUND WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL AS A MATTER OF LAW–HERE THE ALLEGED FACTUAL INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE CONVICTION OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD AND THE ACQUITTALS ON ALL THE OTHER SEXUAL-OFFENSE COUNTS (SECOND DEPT).

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

DOCTORS, WHO ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO WARN PATIENT OF DISORIENTING EFFECTS OF DRUGS,... DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN DOG-BITE ...