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
Only (No-Fault) “N-F 5” Form Triggers 30-Day Period to Deny or Pay a Claim
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM” ESPINAL EXCEPTION APPLIED TO A CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINITFF’S AGENTS WHO MAILED THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WERE NOT IDENTIFIED IN PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING; ALSO, THE AFFIDAVIT PROVIDED NO FOUNDATION FOR SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS FROM A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE OFFICERS’ DECIDING NOT TO ARREST PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SON AFTER AN ALTERCATION BETWEEN HER AND HER SON WAS AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; THEREFORE THE CITY WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ATTACK BY HER SON RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE SHORTER LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WAS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE; THE MOTION TO DISMISS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DAMAGES AMOUNT ASSESSED AGAINST THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT IN THE INQUEST WAS EXCESSIVE (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT ASKED PLAINTIFF TO WIRE THE LOAN PROCEEDS TO A BANK IN NEW YORK; NEW YORK THEREFORE HAD JURISDICTION, PURSUANT TO CPLR 302, OVER THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY THE LOAN (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AT THE OUTSET, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN THE LADDER SHIFTED.

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 ...