You are here: / THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, INCLUDING AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT, WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (CCC’s) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because the supporting evidence, including an attorney affidavit, was not in admissible form:

The affirmation of CCC’s attorney was not based upon personal knowledge and, thus, was of no probative or evidentiary significance … . “The affidavit or affirmation of an attorney, even if he [or she] has no personal knowledge of the facts, may, of course, serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which do provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, e.g., documents, transcripts” … . Here, however, the submissions by CCC on the motion were not in admissible form … . The emails and letters were offered for the truth of their contents and, therefore, constituted hearsay … . CCC failed to establish that any exception to the hearsay rule applied … . Since CCC failed to submit admissible evidence or an affidavit by a person having knowledge of the facts, it failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212[b] …). United Specialty Ins. v Columbia Cas. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 04511, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

/ ,

THE PROOF THE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WAS NOT REBUTTED BY THE DEFENDANT’S UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the proof that defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint was not rebutted by the defendant’s unsubstantiated allegations:

“At a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the burden of proving personal jurisdiction is upon the party asserting it, and that party must sustain that burden by a preponderance of the credible evidence” … .”In reviewing a determination made after a hearing, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of the hearing court, and this Court may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” … .

Here, viewing the evidence in its totality, the plaintiff met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process … . At the hearing, the process server testified to his independent recollection of his personal delivery of the papers to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s dwelling, explained why he recalled this particular delivery, and gave testimony about the mailing. Among the exhibits the plaintiff presented at the hearing was a photograph, with a date, time, and GPS coordinates, depicting where the process server delivered the papers. The defendant’s testimony verified that the person of suitable age and discretion, as named and described in the process server’s affidavit, was consistent with the name and description of one of his co-tenants, his father. Although the defendant testified that his father was out of the country at the time of delivery, the defendant’s testimony, which was unsubstantiated and, in critical respects, without a basis of personal knowledge, was insufficient to support the determination that he was not properly served. Sturrup v Scaria, 2020 NY Slip Op 04506, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

/ ,

THE 90-DAY CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the 90-day statute of limitation in the contract applied and the breach of contract cause of action was therefore time-barred. The construction contract required an action to be brought within 90 days of the completion of construction:

… [An] “agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to commence an action is enforceable'” … . ” [T]he period of time within which an action must be brought . . . should be fair and reasonable, in view of the circumstances of each particular case. . . . The circumstances, not the time, must be the determining factor'” … . “Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced” … .

Here, the [defendant] demonstrated, prima facie, that the time within which to commence this action had expired inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to commence this action within 90 days after May 31, 2011, when construction was indisputably complete … . Stonewall Contr. Corp. v Long Is. Rail Rd. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 04505, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s request for a missing witness jury instruction should have been granted. Defendant was charged with contempt stemming from the violation of a protective order. It was alleged defendant pushed his former girlfriend to the ground in the presence of her date. Her date was subpoenaed by the People and was ready to testify but was not called by the People:

The proponent of a missing witness charge “initially must demonstrate only three things via a prompt request for the charge: (1) that there is an uncalled witness believed to be knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case,’ (2) that such witness can be expected to testify favorably to the opposing party,’ and (3) that such party has failed to call’ the witness to testify” … . “The party opposing the charge, in order to defeat the proponent’s initial showing, must either account for the witness’s absence or demonstrate that the charge would not be appropriate” … . “This burden can be met by demonstrating that the witness is not knowledgeable about the issue, that the issue is not material or relevant, that although the issue is material or relevant, the testimony would be cumulative to other evidence, that the witness is not available’, or that the witness is not under the party’s control’ such that he [or she] would not be expected to testify in his or her favor” … . If the party opposing the charge meets its burden to rebut the proponent’s prima facie showing, “the proponent retains the ultimate burden to show that the charge would be appropriate” … .

Here, the defendant met his prima facie burden to show that the complainant’s date was believed to be knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case and was expected to testify favorably to the People, who had failed to call him to testify. According to the complainant, her date was present during the incident … and was a victim during that incident. The People failed to rebut this prima facie showing … . Contrary to the People’s contention, they failed to establish that the complainant’s date was unavailable as a witness. He appeared in court pursuant to the People’s so-ordered subpoena, and his counsel stated that although he did not wish to be a witness, he was outside the courtroom and was prepared to testify. Further, the People did not establish that the complainant’s date was not under the People’s “control,” such that he would not be expected to testify in their favor, given that he allegedly was on a date with the complainant when the defendant lunged at them, threatened them, and pushed the complainant to the ground. Moreover, the People did not demonstrate that the testimony would have been cumulative. People v Sanchez2020 NY Slip Op 04494, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

/

DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT AT RESENTENCING ABSENT WAIVER, RESENTENCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s resentence, determined the right to be personally present at sentencing extends to resentencing:

The defendant’s fundamental right to be “personally present at the time sentence is pronounced” (CPL 380.40[1]) extends to resentencing or to the  …amendment of a sentence … . While a defendant convicted of a felony may waive the right to be present at resentencing, this waiver must be expressly made … . A “[w]aiver results from a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision” … . Here, the defendant was not produced at resentencing and the record is devoid of any indication that he expressly waived his right to be present. Thus, the Supreme Court’s failure to have the defendant produced at the resentencing proceeding violated the defendant’s fundamental right to be present at the time of sentence. People v Rodriguez, 2020 NY Slip Op 04493, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

/

NOTIFICATION OF AN INTENTION TO CANCEL AN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY IF A QUESTIONNAIRE IS NOT SUBMITTED IS NOT A VALID CANCELLATION, THE POLICY REMAINED IN EFFECT DESPITE THE INSURED’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE QUESTIONNAIRE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s (GEICO’s) purported cancellation of the automobile insurance policy was invalid for two reasons: (1) the notice of cancellation was insufficient; and (2) the reason for the cancellation was not among those allowed by the Insurance Law. GEICO notified the insured (Islam) the policy would be cancelled unless Islam submitted a completed questionnaire by a certain date. Islam did not submit the questionnaire:

“[A] mere expression of a purpose or intention to cancel in the future is not sufficient; that is, it must be one of actual cancellation, not of future conditional cancellation, or of doubtful meaning as to time or purpose” … . The purported cancellation notice reflected a mere intention to cancel in the future if Islam did not provide a completed business use questionnaire.

In any event, cancellation is permitted only upon specified grounds once a covered policy has been in effect for at least 60 days (see Insurance Law § 3425[c][1][A-C]). Insurance Law § 3425(c)(1)(C) requires the “discovery of fraud or material misrepresentation in obtaining the policy or in the presentation of a claim thereunder” to cancel an automobile insurance policy during the required policy period of one year (Insurance Law § 3425[c][1][C]). Here, there is no dispute that the GEICO policy had been in effect for at least 60 days at the time of the purported cancellation. GEICO did not establish that it had discovered any fraud or material misrepresentation committed by Islam; thus, GEICO did not sustain its burden of demonstrating that its notice of cancellation complied with the statutory requirements of Insurance Law § 3425(c)(1) … . Matter of Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. v Barrow, 2020 NY Slip Op 04481, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

/ ,

RESPONDENT IS A DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CONFINEMENT, NOT STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST), SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement under the Mental Hygiene Law. Supreme Court had found respondent was entitled to release under strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST).

Throughout the entirety of the respondent’s confinement and incarceration, he has never successfully completed any sex offender treatment program. The respondent was violent and “destructive” in group therapy, and repeatedly threatened and assaulted his treatment providers and other staff members. During interviews with treatment providers and evaluators, the respondent threatened to kill the judge who sentenced him; indicated that he derived excitement out of humiliating, tormenting, hunting, and hurting other people; and indicated that he kept a “revenge” list in his mind of people he intended to retaliate against. The respondent also repeatedly feigned psychiatric illnesses that he did not have in an attempt to manipulate the evaluators. Up until the time of the subject dispositional hearing, the respondent continued to make threats and express a desire to kill facility staff members. …

The State presented the testimony of two experts, each of whom opined to a reasonable or high degree of psychological certainty that the respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement. Both experts diagnosed the respondent with several disorders that affect his emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity in a manner making it likely that the respondent would engage in recidivist violent sexual offense behavior again. Both experts’ testimony also established that the respondent is presently unable to control his behavior because he has steadfastly refused to meaningfully engage in any treatment program. Each of the experts believed that the respondent’s disorders were treatable, but because the respondent had not successfully completed treatment to resolve his disorders, deviance, offense cycle, or triggers, the disorders remained untreated, and the respondent lacked the ability to control his behavior. Matter of State of New York v Raul L., 2020 NY Slip Op 04479, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM’S FACIAL SCARS WERE SHOWN TO THE JURY NO DESCRIPTION OF THE SCARS APPEARS IN THE TRIAL RECORD AND NO PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SCARS WAS INTRODUCED; THEREFORE THE SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT ELEMENT OF ASSAULT FIRST WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED AND THE ASSAULT FIRST CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT FIRST (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, finding the assault first conviction to be against the weight of the evidence and reducing it to attempted assault first, determined the record of the evidence presented at trial did not support the serious disfigurement element in this knife attack case:

The testimonial, photographic and documentary evidence demonstrated that the victim sustained a laceration to his right cheek that was approximately four centimeters long, as well as a similarly sized laceration transversing the tip of his nose to his right nostril. Both lacerations were sutured by a plastic surgeon. Although the evidence clearly demonstrated the locations of the lacerations and their size prior to and immediately after suturing, the record is imprecise as to the extent and appearance of any resulting facial scars. The People did not introduce a photograph depicting the victim’s nose and right cheek at the time of trial or any time after the sutures had been removed and the lacerations healed … . Further, although the physician who treated the victim testified that the victim was expected to have facial scars and the victim did in fact display facial scars to the jury, the People failed to make a contemporaneous record of what the jury observed, so as to demonstrate the extent and appearance of those scars … . Moreover, despite their prominent locations, there is no indication that the relatively small facial lacerations produced jagged, uneven or “unusually disturbing” scars … . In the absence of a photograph depicting the victim’s facial scars or an on-the-record description of the victim’s scars at the time of trial, we cannot conclude that the record evidence supports a finding of serious disfigurement … . People v Harris, 2020 NY Slip Op 04431, Third Dept 8-6-20

 

/ , ,

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION PRECLUDED THIS CIVIL SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UTILITY AFTER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DETERMINED PLAINTIFF’S ELECTRICITY HAD BEEN PROPERLY CUT OFF BY THE UTILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD REPLACED THE METER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the doctrine of primary jurisdiction precluded plaintiff’s lawsuit against former officers of the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation. Plaintiff believed the digital encoder receiver transmitter (ERT) installed at his home by the utility to replace an analog meter emitted cancer-causing radiation. Plaintiff removed the ERT and replaced it with an analog meter. The utility considered the meter dangerous and cut off plaintiff’s electricity. Plaintiff complained to the Public Service Commission (PSC) which supported the utilities’ power cut-off and informed plaintiff of his appeal rights. Plaintiff did not appeal and started the instant civil suit:

… [W]e find that Supreme Court was correct in its interpretation of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a court has the discretion to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over a matter where an administrative agency also has jurisdiction, and the determination of the issues involved, under a regulatory scheme, depends upon the specialized knowledge and experience of the agency … . Here, the issues concern the particular meter used by Central Hudson, plaintiff’s removal and replacement of same, the safety concerns caused by his actions and the validity of the disconnection of his service. These matters fall under the doctrine and, thus, were appropriate for PSC determination. We also agree with Supreme Court’s assessment that the causes of action found in plaintiff’s complaint amount to little more than a rebranding of his PSC claim and were properly dismissed … .

… [W]e agree with Supreme Court’s determination that review of a PSC ruling is limited to a CPLR article 78 proceeding. “Supreme Court, in determining the motion for [summary judgment,] properly considered whether the . . . primary jurisdiction doctrine[] precluded the causes of action propounded by plaintiff[]” … , and that, in order to review the original ruling, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to bring an article 78 proceeding … . [Romine] v Laurito, 2020 NY Slip Op 04432, Third Dept 8-6-20

 

/ ,

POLICE OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING DEFENDANT’S CAR AFTER OBSERVING A TRAFFIC VIOLATION, DIRECTING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR TO RETURN TO THE CAR AFTER IT PULLED INTO A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY, AND DETAINING THE DEFENDANT AND CONDUCTING A SEARCH ON THE PROPERTY AFTER THE HOMEOWNER SAID HE DID NOT KNOW THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the police officer acted properly in following the defendant’s car after observing a traffic violation, directing the occupants of the car to return to car after it pulled into a residential driveway, detaining the defendant when the homeowner said he did not know the defendant and the others, and arresting the defendant after a weapon was found after a search behind the house:

The officer observed a traffic infraction when the vehicle ran a stop sign …  and was accordingly justified in approaching the vehicle after he had caught up to it … . Defendant suggests that the traffic infraction was a pretext for making the approach, but that contention is unpreserved for our review … . As a result, although one might reasonably question why the officer, upon seeing a traffic violation of sufficient gravity to cause him to make a U-turn and follow the vehicle, did not put on his siren or emergency lights, and then approached the vehicle with more apparent interest in the passengers than the driver, the record was not developed on the possibility of an ulterior motive for the officer’s actions. It follows that the record affords no basis for defendant’s speculation as to the officer’s motivations. We are, in any event, bound by controlling precedent that those speculative motivations would not render an otherwise proper approach invalid … .

The officer had discretion to “control the scene in a way that maximize[d]” safety as the approach unfolded, could have directed defendant to exit the vehicle had he been in it and, in  … view of the heightened safety concerns stemming from defendant’s refusal to return to the vehicle and brief disappearance behind the house, was free to direct that defendant sit on the hood of the vehicle upon his return … . Shortly thereafter, the officer learned that the homeowner did not know anyone in the vehicle despite their claims and had watched defendant throw something away behind the house. The foregoing created a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity by defendant that warranted his detention, after which the handgun was recovered and afforded probable cause for his arrest … . People v Price, 2020 NY Slip Op 04430, Third Dept 8-6-20

 

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