You are here: / PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE NOTE WAS NOT PROPERLY...

Search Results

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE NOTE WAS NOT PROPERLY ENDORSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not establish standing to foreclose. Although the plaintiff proved it had possession of the note at the time the proceeding was brought, it did not demonstrate the note was properly endorsed:

Although the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it had possession of the original “wet ink” note prior to commencing the instant action …, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the note was properly endorsed. “Where there is no allonge or note that is either endorsed in blank or specially endorsed to the plaintiff, mere physical possession of a note at the commencement of a[n] . . . action is insufficient to confer standing or to make a plaintiff the lawful holder of a negotiable instrument for the purposes of enforcing the note” … . Here, the instant note bore no endorsements and had no allonges attached. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v PJK Holdings, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05787, Second Dept 11-20-24

Practice Point: If standing to foreclose is contested, a plaintiff must show (1) it was in possession of the note at the time the proceeding was brought and (2) the note was properly endorsed in blank or specifically to the plaintiff.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not make out a prima facie case that the sidewalk defect was trivial as a matter of law. Therefore defendants’ summary judgment motion should not have been granted:

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendants, including, inter alia, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, as well as photographs of the allegedly defective sidewalk condition, was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the height differential was physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances did not increase the risks the alleged defect posed … . The evidence submitted did not include objective measurements of the dimensions of the defect, specifically the height of the allegedly misleveled sidewalk. The evidence further failed to sufficiently quantify or estimate the dimensions of the defect. The plaintiff identified the photographs as fairly and accurately representing the allegedly defective sidewalk condition as it existed on the date of the accident. While the photographs demonstrated the irregular nature of the sidewalk … , it is impossible to ascertain or to reasonably infer the extent of the defect from the photographs submitted … .

Therefore, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the ground that the defect was trivial and not actionable. Abreu v Pursuit Realty Group, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05781, Second Dept 11-20-24

Practice Point: Here the photos of the sidewalk defect were not supplemented with objective measurements. The proof did not establish the defect was trivial as a matter of law.

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, HE HAD BEEN QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN 120 CASES; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DISQUALIFIED HIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the trial judge should not have disqualified plaintiff’s expert in this elevator accident case. Although the expert was not a professional engineer, he had been qualified as an expert in over 120 state and federal cases:

Supreme Court erred in summarily disqualifying the opinion of Patrick A. Carrajat as an expert. Although Carrajat was not a professional engineer, he nonetheless had the requisite knowledge and experience to render an opinion on the cause of the accident, as he averred that he had been qualified as an elevator expert and testified as an expert witness 120 times in state and federal courts throughout the country … . Furthermore, challenges regarding an expert witness’ qualifications affect the weight to be accorded the expert’s views, not their admissibility … .

Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit creates issues of fact as to both the nature of the incident, and the cause of the incident. While defendants’ experts opined that the elevator could not have malfunctioned as plaintiff described, and that the elevator descended to the lobby at regular speed, Carrajat disputed this and posited ways in which the elevator could have malfunctioned that were consistent with plaintiff’s account of the accident. Given the conflicting expert affidavits, the building defendants have not established their entitlement to summary judgment … . Escolastico v Rigs Mgt. Co., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05769, First Dept 11-19-24

Practice Point: Here in this elevator-accident case plaintiff’s expert was not a professional engineer but had been qualified as an expert in over 120 cases. It was reversible error to summarily disqualify him.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S BRINGING MULTIPLE MERITLESS LAWSUITS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND HER ATTORNEYS OVER THE COURSE OF TEN YEARS WARRANTED SANCTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s bringing several meritless lawsuits against defendant and her attorneys over the course of ten years warranted sanctions:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant an award of sanctions despite noting that plaintiff’s “conduct was entirely frivolous,” “abusive,” and “fabricated.” The record firmly established that plaintiff engaged in a persistent pattern of extended and largely meritless litigation against defendant … , rendering his conduct frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) and thereby warranting sanctions. Plaintiff’s numerous lawsuits initiated against both defendant and her attorneys—six separate suits between 2010 and 2020, all dismissed at the pleading stage—strongly suggests that those lawsuits, along with the present action, were brought primarily to harass defendant … . Our prior decision holding that sanctions for frivolous conduct were not warranted does not affect our decision to grant the motion for sanctions here, as the result in our prior decision (Ray v Ray, 180 AD3d 472, 474 [1st Dept 2020]) was not based on these particular facts. Ray v Ray, 2024 NY Slip Op 05777, First Dept 11-19-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s multiple meritless lawsuits against defendant and her attorneys warranted sanctions for “frivolous conduct.”

 

/ ,

THE POLICE HAD TO “MANIPULATE” THE CHECKS TO DETERMINE THEY WERE FORGED; THEREFORE THE “PLAIN VIEW” EXCEPTION TO THE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT WAS NOT APPLICABLE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, suppressing evidence seized under the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement, held the police had to “manipulate” the checks which were in plain view to determine they were forged. Because the nature of the checks was not apparent until they were “manipulated,” the “plain view” exception was not applicable:

… [W]e conclude that the People did not meet their burden of establishing the third element of the plain view exception—i.e., that the incriminating nature of the seized items was immediately apparent. In making such a determination, we must consider whether “the facts available to the [police] officer would warrant a [person] of reasonable caution in the belief . . . that [the] items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime” … . This is a probable cause standard—i.e., there need not be “certainty or near certainty” about the incriminating nature of the seized items … . That element is not satisfied, however, “where the object [to be seized] must be moved or manipulated before its illegality can be determined” … . Indeed, “[s]uch a search or seizure may not be upheld without proof that the [police] officer who moved or manipulated the object had probable cause to believe that the object was evidence or contraband at the time that it was moved or manipulated” … . Still, “[a] truly cursory inspection—one that involves merely looking at what is already exposed to view, without disturbing it—is not a search” … . People v Howard, 2024 NY Slip Op 05733, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here the fact the checks were forged was not apparent until the police “manipulated” them. Therefore the “plain view” exception to the search-warrant requirement was not applicable and the checks should have been suppressed.

 

/

PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE OR SHE WOULD HOLD THE REFUSAL TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined a prospective juror’s indication he or she would hold defendant’s refusal to testify against the defendant required excusal “for cause:”

Here, the prospective juror gave “some indication of bias” … by stating that he “[a]bsolutely” might hold it against defendant if defendant chose not to testify … .

Contrary to the court’s determination, the prospective juror did not “give unequivocal assurance that [he could] set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” … . Although CPL 270.20 (1) (b) “does not require any particular expurgatory oath or ‘talismanic’ words . . . , [a prospective] juror[ ] must clearly express that any prior experiences or opinions that reveal the potential for bias will not prevent [the prospective juror] from reaching an impartial verdict” … . “If there is any doubt about a prospective juror’s impartiality, [the] trial court[ ] should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have ‘replaced one impartial juror with another’ ” … . We conclude that the prospective juror’s act of nodding his head affirmatively after the court gave an instruction and posed a question to the entire jury panel was “insufficient to constitute such an unequivocal declaration” … . People v Cheese, 2024 NY Slip Op 05712, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here the prospective juror indicated bias requiring excusal for cause by indicating he or she would hold the refusal to testify against the defendant.

 

/ , , ,

MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF HER MENTAL HEALTH IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS ACTION; THE PRIOR MENTAL-HEALTH-BASED RULING WAS BASED ON THREE-TO-EIGHT-YEAR-OLD EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother should not have been prevented from presenting evidence of her mental health in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding under the collateral estoppel doctrine. Although mother had previously been adjudicated unable to provide proper and adequate care of the children in 2018, there was no evidence of mother’s current mental health:

Neither the relied-upon 2018 order of disposition nor its supporting decision … contains a finding of fact or conclusion of law that the mother’s mental illness or intellectual disability permanently impaired the mother’s ability to provide adequate care for a child … . Instead, the prior judicial determination that the mother was “presently and for the foreseeable future” unable to provide adequate care was premised upon evaluations of the mother conducted in 2012 and 2017. Further, that determination was issued a year prior to the birth of the subject child in the present proceeding and, although the subject child was ordered into petitioner’s care almost immediately following her birth, the instant petition was nonetheless not filed for yet another two years. Thus, the 2018 judicial determination, premised on three- to eight-year-old evidence, is insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence, as a matter of law, that the mother was, at the time of this proceeding, “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness or intellectual disability, to provide proper and adequate care for [the subject] child” (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c] …). Matter of Juliet W. (Amy W.), 2024 NY Slip Op 05690, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here there was a prior ruling based on three-to-eight-year-old evidence that mother’s mental health prevented her from adequately caring for her children. The collateral estoppel doctrine should not have been applied to prevent her from presenting evidence of her current mental health.

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS, FINDING THAT THE PEOPLE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AT THE TIME THE PEOPLE INDICATED THEY WERE READY FOR TRIAL; THE DISMISSAL ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE PEOPLE SO THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER STARTED RUNNING RENDERING THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL TIMELY; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER “DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES” DOCUMENTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT POSSESS THOSE DOCUMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the People’s appeal was timely because defendant never served the order dismissing the indictment on them so the 30-day appeal period never started running, and (2) the People were not obligated to turn over Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) documents to comply with their discovery obligations because the People did not possess those documents:

The Court of Appeals has “interpreted CPL 460.10 (1) (a) ‘to require prevailing party service’—not just the handing out of an order by the court—’to commence the time for filing a notice of appeal’ ” … . Here, the record establishes that the People received a copy of the original order, but there is “no evidence that [defendant] ever served the order as required by CPL 460.10 (1) (a)” … . Inasmuch as the record fails to establish that defendant ever served the People with a copy of the original order, the People’s 30-day period to appeal never began to run and the People’s appeal is therefore timely … . * * *

… [A]ssuming … that the parole officer’s disciplinary records from DOCCS met the relevancy prong as being related to the subject matter of the case, we conclude that the People established that those records did not meet the possessory prong required to prompt their initial discovery obligation with respect thereto (see CPL 245.20 [1] …). “[F]or the purposes of discovery, DOCCS is not a ‘law enforcement’ agency” and is ” ‘outside of the legal or practical control of local prosecutors’ and, therefore, the People cannot be deemed to be in constructive possession of that which DOCCS possesses” … . People v Walker, 2024 NY Slip Op 05662, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: If the defendant wins a motion to dismiss the indictment, the defendant must serve the People with the dismissal order or the People’s 30-day appeal period does not start running.

Practice Point: The People do not violate their discovery obligations by failing to turn over documents which are in the possession of another agency, here the Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS).

 

/ ,

THE COVID-19 TOLLS SUSPENDED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE RENDERING THE ACTION TIMELY COMMENCED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the COVID-19 tolls suspended the running of the statute of limitations in this personal injury case, rendering the action timely commenced:

Pursuant to CPLR 214 (5), a three-year statute of limitations applies to an action to recover damages for personal injury. Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on June 27, 2019, the date of the accident … , and plaintiff did not commence this action until June 29, 2022. However … plaintiff established that the statute of limitations was tolled. On March 20, 2020, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8, which tolled “any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state, including but not limited to . . . the civil practice law and rules” … . Then-Governor Cuomo issued a series of nine subsequent executive orders that extended the tolling period, eventually through November 3, 2020 … . “A toll does not extend the statute of limitations indefinitely but merely suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for a finite and, in this instance, readily identifiable time period” … . “[T]he period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the time in which the plaintiff can commence an action” … . Paul v Lyons, 2024 NY Slip Op 05661, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of how the COVID-19 tolls affect the running of a statute of limitations.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S BIPOLAR DIAGNOSIS AND A STATEMENT INDICATING HIS FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM SORA RISK-LEVEL TWO TO THREE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the People did not demonstrate that an upward departure from SORA risk-level two to three was warranted:

… [W]e conclude that the People failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is more likely to reoffend based on his bipolar diagnosis. The only evidence offered by the People at the SORA hearing was the report prepared by defendant’s expert, who opined that “impaired judgment is a common disability in Bipolar Disorder, as is impulsiveness.” The expert further opined that defendant’s “judgment was impaired by his disorder” when he committed the crimes, and that he “acted impulsively because of his then undiagnosed (and inadequately treated) illness.” The fact that defendant’s bipolar condition may have impaired his judgment and decreased his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior when he committed the qualifying offenses does not mean, ipso facto, that he is at a greater risk of reoffending in the future as a result of his bipolar condition. Defendant’s mental illness was undiagnosed and untreated when he committed the qualifying offenses, and there is no evidence in the record indicating a reluctance or inability on defendant’s part to follow treatment recommendations and take prescribed medications now that he has been properly diagnosed.

We further conclude that an upward departure was not warranted based on defendant’s post-offense statement to one of the victims. Although the statement in question may show, as the People asserted, that defendant failed to accept responsibility for his crimes, an offender’s failure to accept responsibility is taken into account under risk factor 12 on the risk assessment instrument. Thus, an upward departure cannot be granted based on defendant’s statement … . People v Cohen, 2024 NY Slip Op 05658, Fourth Dept 11-15-24

Practice Point: Here defendant’s bipolar diagnosis and a statement to the victim indicating his failure to take responsibility for the offense did not justify an upward department from SORA risk-level two to three. The evidence did not demonstrate the bipolar disorder increased the risk of reoffending and the statement was already taken into account under risk factor 12.

 

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