You are here: / Criteria for a Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Documentary Evidence and a...

Search Results

/

Criteria for a Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Documentary Evidence and a Motion to Dismiss Supported by Submitted Evidence Explained (Not Met Here)

In finding defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied, the Second Department explained the criteria for a motion to dismiss based upon documentary evidence, and for a motion to dismiss accompanied by the submission of evidence. The court noted that affidavits, deposition testimony and letters do not constitute “documentary evidence” in this context:

A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against it under CPLR 3211(a)(1) “on the ground that . . . a defense is founded upon documentary evidence.” A motion on this ground, however, “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . “Neither affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence’ within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1)” … . …

… A court may consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . Nonetheless, it must be kept in mind that a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion is not a motion for summary judgment unless the court elects to so treat it under CPLR 3211(c), after giving adequate notice to the parties … . Moreover, “[w]here evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate” … . Shofel v DaGrossa, 2015 NY Slip Op 08156, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

/ ,

Criteria for Mandamus to Compel Explained (Not Met Here)

The Second Department determined the county personnel director’s ruling that community college employees would no longer be eligible for promotions to county jobs was rationally based on the terms of an agreement between the county and the college. In finding that the “mandamus to compel” petition was properly denied, the court explained the relevant criteria:

” The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is available in limited circumstances only to compel the performance of a purely ministerial act which does not involve the exercise of official discretion or judgment, and only when a clear legal right to the relief has been demonstrated'” … . “A discretionary act involve[s] the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result'” … . Since the petitioner sought to compel conduct clearly involving the application of … discretion and judgment …, the remedy of mandamus is not available. Matter of Suffolk County Assn. of Mun. Empls., Inc. v Levy, 2015 NY Slip Op 08181, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

/

Evidence Insufficient to Support Attempted Rape Conviction, Ordering Victim to Take Off Her Clothes, Without More, Was Not Enough

The Second Department determined the evidence did not support the attempted rape conviction. Although it could be inferred defendant intended to commit a sexual offense (he twice told the victim to take off her clothes), he never touched the victim, made a verbal demand for sex, or removed any of his clothes:

… [W]e find that it was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of attempted rape in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant testified that she was sleeping in her bedroom when she awakened to find the defendant, who had entered her house through a window, standing in her bedroom. He initially demanded money from her. After she told him twice that she had none, he yelled at her “take your clothes off.” He then walked around the left side of the bed towards her, again yelled “take your clothes off,” and pulled back her bed covers. After he pulled down the covers, she began screaming and he turned and ran out. There was no evidence that the defendant touched the complainant or that he made a verbal demand to have sexual intercourse with her. Additionally, there was no evidence that the defendant undressed or that any of the complainant’s clothes were removed.

Although it could be reasonably inferred from the evidence adduced at trial that the defendant intended to engage in some type of criminal sexual conduct, it cannot be inferred that he attempted to engage in sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion pursuant to Penal Law § 130.35(1) … . People v Mais, 2015 NY Slip Op 08195, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

/ ,

Reversible Error to Admit Hearsay Statements Made by the Victim Four Years After the Alleged Incident Under the “Prompt Outcry” Exception to the Hearsay Rule

The Third Department ordered a new trial in a sexual assault case because hearsay testimony about what the victim said four years after the alleged assault was admitted under the “prompt outcry” exception to the hearsay rule (without any substantive explanation for the delay):

Whether a complaint is sufficiently prompt so as to fall within the exception is not a matter of precision and depends upon the facts of a given case … . That being said, “courts traditionally have required the complaint to be made ‘at the first suitable opportunity'” …, and “[a]ny significant delay must be adequately explained” … . Here, the victim did not disclose the abuse until 2011, four years after she and her sister were placed in the custody of her father and the abuse had ended. The victim testified that she waited so long to disclose the abuse because defendant had threatened to kill her if she told anyone, but that threat was made during a supervised visit between the victim and defendant. The visitation had ceased well before the disclosures were made, and the victim had neither seen nor spoken to defendant since 2009. We are left, in other words, with disclosures that were made four years after the abuse ended and over two years after the victim last interacted with defendant … .

The People suggest that this prolonged delay can be attributed to the facts that the victim had sustained psychological trauma and suffered from a mild neurological impairment. Research indeed “suggest[s] that withholding a complaint may not be unusual,” but that fact is not dispositive in assessing whether a complaint was made promptly … . To hold otherwise would run against the very purpose of the exception, namely, to address “the tendency of some jurors to doubt the victim in the absence of” a prompt complaint of abuse … . As for the victim’s neurological condition, it suffices to say that no proof in the record suggests that it would have compelled her to remain silent for such a long period of time. Thus, given the absence of any adequate explanation for the victim’s prolonged delay in disclosing the abuse, her disclosures cannot be described as prompt outcries, and the hearsay testimony regarding them should not have been admitted into evidence … . Inasmuch as the evidence of guilt in this case was not overwhelming — indeed, the verdict hinged on the question of whether the victim was credible — we cannot say that the erroneous admission of this bolstering hearsay was harmless … . People v Stone, 2015 NY Slip Op 08205, 3rd Dept 11-12-15

 

/ ,

Intoxication Jury Instruction Was Warranted, Conviction Reversed

In reversing defendant’s conviction, the Second Department determined there was sufficient evidence of defendant’s intoxication to warrant the intoxication jury instruction:

The defendant’s convictions of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree arise out of an incident during which the defendant allegedly struck another man (hereinafter the complainant) with a metal pipe in the presence of the complainant’s wife. Viewing the intoxication evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant …, we conclude, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, that an intoxication instruction (see Penal Law § 15.25) was warranted … . The complainant’s wife testified that, just prior to the subject assault, she observed the defendant with a can of beer in his hand and that the defendant seemed drunk. She further testified that the defendant’s breath smelled like beer, his speech was slurred, and that the defendant, with whom she was familiar, was “not himself.” Under these circumstances, there is “sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s request to give an intoxication instruction to the jury and, thus, reversal is warranted … . People v Goldring, 2015 NY Slip Op 08189, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

/ , ,

Questioning by Police and Caseworker Violated Defendant’s Right to Counsel, Failure to Suppress Statements Was Not Harmless Error

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction (for murder of mother, stepfather and stepbrother) because defendant’s “yeah probably” response to the question whether he wanted a lawyer was deemed an unequivocal request for a lawyer. A public defender, who represented defendant in a prior case, had sent a letter to the district attorney indicating he was aware of the murders and that he didn’t want defendant questioned in his absence. The police who questioned defendant did not tell defendant about the letter. The court determined that the letter did not cause the right to counsel to attach because it did not state the public defender was representing defendant on the murders. However, given the interrogating officers’ knowledge of the letter, they should have asked defendant directly whether he wanted the public defender’s representation. In addition, a child protective caseworker’s (MacNeil’s) subsequent questioning of the defendant violated his right to counsel because the caseworker was deemed an agent of the police:

… [T]he People contend that defendant’s statement — namely, “Yeah, probably” — did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel. We disagree. The word “probably” is defined as “very likely” or “almost certainly” (Merriam—Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.MerriamWebster.com/dictionary/probably). It is difficult to conceive of circumstances where “probably” would mean “no,” particularly here, where the police knew that defendant was currently represented, albeit on unrelated charges, and also knew that counsel was so clearly attempting to protect his current client’s constitutional rights. Defendant’s demeanor and tone when saying “Yeah, probably” was his simple expression, in everyday language, that he was not competent or capable to deal with the officers’ questioning. Thus, based on the particular circumstances herein, a reasonable police officer would have understood that defendant’s statement was a request for counsel, requiring questioning without representation to cease .. . * * *

As it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that the admission of defendant’s statements at trial affected the jury’s verdict, County Court committed reversible error in failing to suppress defendant’s statements to the officers… . * * *

MacNeil acknowledged that she works closely with the police in these types of investigations and that, to the best of her recollection, Hamilton [a police officer who had questioned defendant] was present in the room as she was speaking with defendant. Based on the foregoing, we find that MacNeil was acting as an agent of law enforcement and, therefore, her questioning also infringed upon defendant’s right to counsel. Thus, as the product of interrogation by a public servant engaged in law enforcement activity, defendant’s statements to MacNeil were involuntary and should have been suppressed … . People v Slocum, 2015 NY Slip Op 08203, 3rd Dept 11-12-15

 

/ ,

Libel Action Based Upon Allegedly False Impressions Created by an Article in an Online News Publication, Including the Allegedly False Context of a Quotation of Plaintiff’s Own Words, Allowed to Go Forward; Pleading Requirements for Piercing the Corporate Veil Not Met.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined: (1) the complaint did not state a cause of action for libel per se (because extrinsic facts were necessary for a defamatory interpretation of the statement); (2) the libel cause action failed to sufficiently plead special damages (leave to replead granted); (3) the fact that one of the allegedly defamatory statements was in plaintiff’s “own words” did not warrant dismissal; and (4) the complaint did not adequately allege that the publisher of the statements (Daily Holdings) was the alter ego of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. The opinion includes substantive discussions (which cannot be fairly summarized here) of defamation, falsity, libel per se, libel, special damages, the so-called “own words” defense, and the requirements for piercing the corporate veil. With respect to the plaintiff’s twitter post which allegedly was used in a false context, the court discussed the so-called “own words defense:”

It is true that courts across the country have extended the “truth defense” to include an “own words” defense (see e.g., Thomas v Pearl, 998 F2d 447, 452 [7th Cir 1993] [holding that “(a) party’s accurate quoting of another’s statement cannot defame the speaker’s reputation since the speaker is himself responsible for whatever harm the words might cause. . . . The fact that a statement is true, or in this case accurately quoted, is an absolute defense to a defamation action.”]; Van Buskirk v Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F3d 977, 981-982 [9th Cir 2002] [applying the “own words” defense despite “contextual discrepancies” between the plaintiff’s own words and the defendants’ quotation of those words]; Johnson v Overnite Transp. Co., 19 F3d 392, 392 n1 [8th Cir 1994] [recognizing the “general rule that a defamation claim arises only from a communication by someone other than the person defamed”]; Smith v School Dist. of Philadelphia, 112 F Supp 2d 417, 429 [ED Pa 2000] [noting that “(g)enerally, a plaintiff can not (sic) be defamed by the use of his own words”]). Although defendants cite to Thomas v Pearl (998 F2d 447) in their brief, the parties failed to specifically address whether the “own words” defense should be adopted by this Court; and we are aware of no authority, in either New York State jurisprudence or in the Second Circuit, which either expressly accepts or rejects the “own words” defense. We are aware of only one case in the State, albeit a federal district court case, that even mentions the defense: Fine v ESPN (11 F Supp 3d 209, 224 [ND NY 2014]), in a section titled ” Own Words’ Defense,” states that it cannot reach the issue because the records needed to compare the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s words were not properly before the court on a motion to dismiss. This highlights, however, the importance of a court’s need to compare the two statements as they appear in the actual writings before applying the “own words” defense to dismiss a defamation claim. This is also evident from the fact that the “own words” defense derives from the “truth defense.” Even if we were to adopt the “own words” defense, we find that it would not apply here where a comparison of the two statements reveals the potential for them to have different effects on the mind of the reader. Franklin v Daily Holdings, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 08139, 1st Dept 11-12-15

 

/ ,

Neglect Finding Cannot Be Based Upon Judicial Notice of a Drug Conviction

Reversing Family Court, the Second Department explained the pre-requisites for a neglect finding. Here Family Court erroneously made a neglect finding by taking judicial notice of mother’s drug conviction:

Family Court Act § 1051(a) provides that the Family Court may enter an order finding that a child is an abused child or a neglected child on the consent of all parties and the attorney for the child, or following the completion of a fact-finding hearing at which the petitioning agency establishes the allegations of abuse or neglect by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1044, 1046[b][i]). Further, in appropriate cases, the Family Court may also enter an order finding that a child is an abused child or a neglected child on a motion for summary judgment in lieu of holding a fact-finding hearing, upon the petitioning agency’s prima facie showing of neglect or abuse as a matter of law, and the respondent’s failure to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion … .

Here, the Family Court did not enter the finding of neglect on the consent of all parties and the attorney for the child, or following the completion of a fact-finding hearing (see Family Ct Act § 1051[a]). Moreover, the Family Court did not enter the finding of neglect upon a motion by the DSS for summary judgment … . Thus, the Family Court, which simply took judicial notice at a conference of a certificate of disposition, lacked the authority to enter a finding of neglect. Matter of Vincent M. (Jamie M.), 2015 NY Slip Op 08170, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

/ ,

Motions for Findings Allowing Child to Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s motions for the issuance of special findings to enable the child [Jose] to petition for special immigrant juvenile status should have been granted:

… [I]t is declared that Jose … has been legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court, and it is found that Jose …  is unmarried and under 21 years of age, that reunification with one of his parents is not viable due to parental abandonment, and that it would not be in his best interests to return to Honduras, his previous country of nationality or last habitual residence. Matter of Gomez v Sibrian, 2015 NY Slip Op 08165, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

/

Injury Caused by Lifting a Heavy Beam Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1), Despite the Fact the Beam Was Resting on an Elevated Scaffold

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s injury was not related to the type of hazard covered by Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiff injured his back when he lifted a beam which was resting on an elevated scaffold. The court explained:

“[T]he extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity'” … . Rather, the statute was designed to prevent accidents in which a protective device, ” proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person'” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of [the defendant’s] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). *  *  * … [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether his injury arose from an elevation-related risk contemplated by the statute, rather than from the usual and ordinary dangers of the construction site … . The fact that the plaintiff was injured while lifting a heavy object does not give rise to liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … . Cardenas v BBM Constr. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 08142, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

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