You are here: / BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303; BANK’S MOTION FOR...

Search Results

/ ,

BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303; BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the bank did not prove compliance with the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1303:

“Proper service of the notice required by RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and it is the plaintiff’s burden to show compliance with that statute” … .

Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the process server’s affidavit indicating that a notice was served with the summons and complaint. However, the plaintiff did not submit a copy of the RPAPL 1303 notice allegedly served, and the process server made no averments that the notice served complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1303 concerning content and form. The plaintiff, therefore, failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1303 … . Flagstar Bank, FSB v Hart, 2020 NY Slip Op 03217, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

/ ,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR WAS NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; SANCTIONS FOR THE LOSS OF THE LIGHT FIXTURE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF WERE NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE THE BENT PIPE TO WHICH THE FIXTURE WAS ATTACHED WAS PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Plaintiff was injured when a light fixture fell on him. The pipe to which the fixture was attached was bent and was preserved by the defendant. The light fixture, which was same as several others at the site, was not preserved. Because contractors were working at the site, and the pipe securing the light fixture was bent. it could not be said defendant exercised exclusive control over the fixture. The Second Department went on to find that sanctions for the loss of the light fixture were not warranted because the bent pipe was saved and the light fixture itself was not crucial evidence:

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine which is submitted to the finder of fact when the accident arises out of an event which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, the accident was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and it was not due to a voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff … . The Court of Appeals has held that “only in the rarest of res ipsa loquitur cases may a plaintiff win summary judgment or a directed verdict. That would happen only when the plaintiff’s circumstantial proof is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of defendant’s negligence is inescapable” … . Cantey v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03213, Second dept 6-10-20

 

/ , , ,

THE HOLDER OF A DEED INTENDED AS SECURITY IN THE NATURE OF A MORTGAGE MUST PROCEED BY FORECLOSURE TO EXTINGUISH THE MORTGAGOR’S INTEREST; HERE THE SUBSEQUENT GOOD FAITH PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE MORTGAGEE’S CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING RESCISSION OF THEIR DEED AND A DECLARATION THEIR DEED WAS NULL AND VOID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a deed which facially appears to evidence an absolute conveyance was actually intended as security in the nature of a mortgage. The holder of such a deed (here American Lending) must proceed by foreclosure to extinguish the mortgagor’s interest. The subsequent purchasers of the property (the Romond defendants) were good faith purchasers. Therefore the Romond defendants were entitled to dismissal of American Lending’s complaint seeking rescission of the Romond deed and a declaration the deed was null and void:

In 2009, the defendant Dana Grigg sought to purchase certain property … . When financing for the transaction fell through, Grigg entered into an … agreement with the plaintiff, American Lending Corp. … to borrow … $385,000. The terms of the loan, which were memorialized in a note, included a provision that after 90 days, if the loan had not been repaid in full, American Lending would be authorized to file a joint deed in the property records and to “seek a Summary Judgment instead of following a regular foreclosure proceedings [sic].” In June 2009, Grigg purchased the subject property and executed … a deed from himself to himself and American Lending (… the joint deed). Grigg subsequently defaulted under the terms of the loan. * * *

Real Property Law § 320 provides, in pertinent part, that a “deed conveying real property, which, by any other written instrument, appears to be intended only as a security in the nature of a mortgage, although an absolute conveyance in terms, must be considered a mortgage” … .  … “The holder of a deed given as security must proceed in the same manner as any other mortgagee—by foreclosure and sale—to extinguish the mortgagor’s interest” … .

… [T]he Romond defendants established … that the joint deed was given as security for the loan from American Lending to Grigg. Therefore, pursuant to Real Property Law § 320, the joint deed must be considered a mortgage, and American Lending’s sole remedy for Grigg’s breach of its terms was to commence an action sounding in foreclosure. Moreover, under the circumstances at bar, the Romond defendants established that they were good faith purchasers of the subject property (see Real Property Law § 290 …). American Lending Corp. v Grigg, 2020 NY Slip Op 03211, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

/ ,

FRYE HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DNA EVIDENCE DERIVED USING THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST); NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined either the DNA evidence should have been precluded, or a Frye hearing should have been held for DNA evidence derived using the Forensic Statistical Tool (FST):

Prior to trial, the defendant moved to preclude evidence sought to be introduced by the People regarding DNA testing derived from the use of the Forensic Statistical Tool (hereinafter FST), or alternatively, to conduct a hearing pursuant to Frye v United States (293 F 1013 [DC Cir]) to determine the admissibility of such evidence. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion, finding that FST was generally accepted in the scientific community.

Based upon the recent determinations by the Court of Appeals in People v Foster-Bey (_____ NY3d _____, 2020 NY Slip Op 02124) and People v Williams (_____ NY3d _____, 2020 NY Slip Op 02123), we find that it was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law for the Supreme Court to admit the FST evidence without first holding a Frye hearing “given [the] defendant’s showing that there was uncertainty regarding whether such proof was generally accepted in the relevant scientific community at the time of [the defendant’s] motion” … . Additionally, we find that the error was not harmless … . Without this forensic evidence, proof of the defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming as the only additional evidence linking the defendant to the weapon was the testimony of a lay witness which was circumstantial in nature. People v Pelt, 2020 NY Slip Op 03250, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

/ , ,

WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK AFTER HE WAS HANDCUFFED NOT JUSTIFIED; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the warrantless search of defendant’s backpack was not justified. The appeal was heard because the waiver of appeal was deemed invalid:

Officer Musa approached the defendant, who, in response to Officer Musa’s inquiry, provided his name. The defendant was carrying a backpack, and Officer Musa observed what appeared to be credit cards or identification cards in an outside mesh pocket. Officer Musa arrested the defendant for criminal trespass, handcuffed him, and removed the backpack from the defendant. Officer Musa then searched the backpack at the scene of the arrest … . * * *

” All warrantless searches presumptively are unreasonable per se,’ and, thus, [w]here a warrant has not been obtained, it is the People who have the burden of overcoming’ this presumption of unreasonableness” …. ” [E]ven a bag within the immediate control or grabbable area’ of a suspect at the time of his [or her] arrest may not be subjected to a warrantless search incident to the arrest, unless the circumstances leading to the arrest support a reasonable belief that the suspect may gain possession of a weapon or be able to destroy evidence located in the bag'” … . People v Chy, 2020 NY Slip Op 03244, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

/ , ,

HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY THE ONLY WITNESS TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT AS A PERPETRATOR INDICATED THE WITNESS WAS NOT IN FACT ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY OF THE PERPETRATORS; THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE THEY WENT TO A CORE ISSUE IN THE CASE IMPLICATING THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that a hearsay statement allegedly made by the only witness (Lindsay) to identify the defendant as one of the masked intruders in this home-invasion murder-assault-burglary case should have been allowed in evidence. Lindsay, who was shot by one of the intruders, initially claimed he could not identify anyone because they were wearing face-coverings. He later identified the defendant and the others, claiming that he initially did not identify them because he was afraid. The witness who was not allowed to testify, Boyd, is Lindsay’s brother. Boyd would have testified that Lindsay repeatedly told him he could not identify any of the intruders. Boyd had contacted defense counsel only after Lindsay testified so no foundation for Boyd’s testimony had been laid. The prosecutor was willing to allow Lindsay to be recalled for that purpose:

“Once a proper foundation is laid, a party may show that an adversary’s witness has, on another occasion, made oral or written statements which are inconsistent with some material part of the trial testimony, for the purpose of impeaching the credibility and thereby discrediting the testimony of the witness” … . “Since evidence of inconsistent statements is often collateral to the ultimate issue before the [trier of fact] and bears only upon the credibility of the witness, its admissibility is entrusted to the sound discretion of the Trial Judge'” … . Indeed, “[i]t is well established that the trial courts have broad discretion to keep the proceedings within manageable limits and to curtail exploration of collateral matters” … . However, “the trial court’s discretion in this area is circumscribed by the defendant’s constitutional rights to present a defense and confront his accusers” … . “Thus, while a trial court may preclude impeachment evidence that is speculative, remote, or collateral, [that] rule . . . has no application where the issue to which the evidence relates is material in the sense that it is relevant to the very issues that the [trier of fact] must decide'” … .

“Where the truth of the matter asserted in the proffered inconsistent statement is relevant to a core factual issue of a case, its relevancy is not restricted to the issue of credibility and its probative value is not dependent on the inconsistent statement” … . Under such circumstances, the right to present a defense may “encompass[ ] the right to place before the [trier of fact] secondary forms of evidence, such as hearsay” … . “Indeed where constitutional rights directly affecting the ascertainment of guilt are implicated, the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice'” … . People v Butts, 2020 NY Slip Op 03243, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

/

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF PROPERTY JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER INDICTMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals affirmed for the reasons stated in the Fourth Department’s memorandum. People v Ball, 2020 NY Slip Op 03209, CtApp 6-9-20

SUMMARY OF THE AUGUST 22, 2019, MEMORANDUM AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ON JUNE 9, 2020

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined County Court properly dismissed the murder/manslaughter indictment because the grand jury was not charged with the defense of property justification defense. After decedent had twice attacked defendant inside the home, the decedent reentered the home from the front yard and was shot by the defendant:

During a recess in the grand jury proceeding, defendant asked the People to deliver to the grand jury foreperson a letter requesting, among other things, that the grand jurors be charged with respect to the justifiable use of physical force in defense of a person pursuant to Penal Law § 35.15 and the justifiable use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of a burglary pursuant to § 35.20 (3). The People did not deliver the letter to the foreperson.

The People instructed the grand jury on the law with respect to murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), manslaughter in the first degree (§ 125.20 [1]), and the justification defense pursuant to Penal Law § 35.15; however, the People did not instruct the grand jury with respect to the justification defense pursuant to § 35.20 (3).

… [W]e conclude that the court properly dismissed the indictment based on the People’s failure to instruct the grand jury on the justification defense pursuant to Penal Law § 35.20 (3) … . A court may dismiss an indictment on the ground that a grand jury proceeding is defective where, inter alia, the proceeding is so irregular “that the integrity thereof is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result” (CPL 210.35 [5]; see CPL 210.20 [1] [c]). With respect to grand jury instructions, CPL 190.25 (6) provides, as relevant here, that, “[w]here necessary or appropriate, the court or the district attorney, or both, must instruct the grand jury concerning the law with respect to its duties or any matter before it.” “If the prosecutor fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment” … . Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that an instruction regarding the justification defense pursuant to Penal Law § 35.20 (3) was warranted, and the prosecutor’s failure to provide that instruction impaired the integrity of the grand jury proceeding (see CPL 210.35 [5]). Furthermore, we conclude that the error was not cured by the instruction regarding the justification defense under Penal Law § 35.15 … . People v Ball, 2019 NY Slip Op 06295, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

/ ,

THE APPELLATE DIVISION COULD NOT DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF A SUPPRESSION MOTION ON A GROUND NOT RELIED UPON BY THE SUPPRESSION COURT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the Appellate Division could not decide the appeal of the denial of a suppression motion on a ground (exigent circumstances) that was not relied on by the suppression court:

… [D]efendant moved to suppress physical evidence found inside a suitcase that he was carrying at the time of his arrest, relying on People v Gokey (60 NY2d 309 [1983]), and arguing that exigent circumstances were needed to justify a warrantless search of the closed suitcase. Supreme Court determined that Gokey did not apply and, therefore, made no findings regarding the existence of exigent circumstances. The Appellate Division affirmed on a different ground, determining, as both defendant and the People argued, that Gokey did apply and accepting the People’s argument that exigent circumstances—namely, the protection of evidence or the safety of the police or the public—justified the search … .

“Upon an appeal to an intermediate appellate court from a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court, such intermediate appellate court may consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect in the criminal court proceedings which may have adversely affected the appellant” (CPL 470.15 [1]). “This provision is a legislative restriction on the Appellate Division’s power to review issues either decided in an appellant’s favor, or not ruled upon, by the trial court'” … . The statute ” bars the Appellate Division from affirming a judgment, sentence or order on a ground not decided adversely to the appellant by the trial court'” … . This “restriction applies in equal force to this Court which itself has no broader review powers'” … .

Here, the Appellate Division did not err in determining that Gokey was applicable, the only reviewable issue before it. However, “[b]ecause the suppression court did not deny the motion on the ground that there were exigent circumstances, that issue was not decided adversely to defendant and it could not be invoked by the Appellate Division” … . Accordingly, the Appellate Division erred in deciding that issue. People v Harris, 2020 NY Slip Op 03208, CtApp 6-9-20

 

/

PETITIONER WAS INITIALLY APPROVED FOR PAROLE, BUT AFTER THE VICTIM IMPACT HEARING A RESCISSION HEARING WAS HELD AND PAROLE WAS RESCINDED; THE RESCISSION WAS PROPERLY BASED UPON VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS SUPPLYING INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT “NEW” BUT WHICH WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN TO THE PAROLE BOARD (CT APP).

The Court of appeals affirmed the Third Department’s decision upholding the rescission of petitioner’s parole:

Judicial intervention in Parole Board determinations is warranted “only when there is a showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety” … . Petitioner failed to make such a showing here with regard to the Parole Board’s determination to rescind his parole release. Matter of Benson v New York State Bd. of Parole, 2020 NY Slip Op 03207, CtApp 6-9-20

SUMMARY OF THE OCTOBER 31, 2019, DECISION AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ON JUNE 9, 2020

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined petitioner’s parole was properly rescinded after a rescission hearing was triggered by a victim impact hearing:

In August 2016, letters were sent from the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to the Albany County District Attorney’s office and the judge who imposed the sentence informing them that petitioner was scheduled to appear before respondent.Petitioner appeared before respondent in December 2017, after which he was granted parole with an open release date in February 2018. Thereafter, in January 2018, a victim impact hearing was held at which the victim’s mother and two brothers gave victim impact statements. After this hearing, petitioner was served with a notice of rescission hearing, which was subsequently held in February 2018. Following the rescission hearing, petitioner’s open release date was rescinded and a hold period of nine months was imposed. This determination was upheld on administrative appeal. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Petitioner argues that the victim impact statements and letters from the District Attorney’s office and sentencing judge disclosed no new facts about petitioner’s crime. … . … Although we agree that the letters should not have been considered as they did not reveal any information not previously known by respondent, this argument must fail with respect to the victim impact statements because neither the relevant regulation, nor the existing case law, requires that “new” information must be disclosed for parole to be rescinded (see 9 NYCRR 8002.5) …  Simply stated, although the regulation provides that such information must be “significant” and “not known” by respondent at the time of the original hearing, the origin of this information need not be “new” … .

Here, respondent was presented with previously unknown information from the mother, including that she was so traumatized by her son’s death that she did everything she could to avoid thinking about it, including never visiting his grave. The mother explained that, in the 25 years since the victim’s death, she has not celebrated Christmas, Thanksgiving or her other sons’ birthdays. She described how she thought that, once petitioner went to prison, it was done, and that she was safe, but she no longer felt safe. Matter of Benson v New York State Bd. of Parole, 2019 NY Slip Op 07829, Third Dept 10-31-19

 

/ ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM DECLINING TO SIGN AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that no appeal lies from declining to sign an order to show cause:

No appeal lies from an order declining to sign an order to show cause, since it is an ex parte order that does not decide a motion made on notice (CPLR 5701[a][2] … ). To the extent defendant seeks review of the ex parte order pursuant to CPLR 5704, such relief is denied. Review under CPLR 5704 would not, in any event, address the merits of the motion defendant sought to make by order to show cause … .

To the extent defendant contends that we should review the order or grant leave to appeal in the interest of justice, we decline to do so. Chi Young Lee v Osorio, 2020 NY Slip Op 03186, First Dept 6-4-20

 

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