You are here: / NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT PROVEN; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION...

Search Results

/ , ,

NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT PROVEN; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements was deficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or any evidence of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served the defendant pursuant to the terms of RPAPL 1304 … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the affidavit of a representative of its loan servicer was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the representative did not provide evidence “of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … , and provided no independent evidence of the actual mailing … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Herzberg, 2020 NY Slip Op 01201, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S REPEATED FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE CONTINUATION OF HER DEPOSITION WAS WILLFUL, STRIKING THE COMPLAINT WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court) determined striking the complaint was too severe a sanction for plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear for the continuation of her deposition:

… [T]he plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear for her continued deposition, coupled with her failure to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for that failure, supports an inference that her conduct was willful … . The plaintiff proffered the health condition of her attorney as an excuse for failing to appear for the continued deposition. However, the plaintiff’s attorney did not submit medical evidence or sufficient documentary facts to support the claim, or explain why his per diem attorney was unable to attend the deposition … .

Even so, given that the plaintiff had complied with disclosure except for completing the continued deposition relating to newly alleged injuries, we find that the striking of the complaint was too drastic a remedy.

Accordingly, we modify the order appealed from by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendant’s motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) to strike the complaint, and substitute therefor a provision granting the defendant’s motion only to the extent of precluding the plaintiff from offering evidence at trial with respect to any of the new injuries alleged in the plaintiff’s supplemental verified bill of particulars … . Turiano v Schwaber, 2020 NY Slip Op 01200, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

/ , ,

PROOF OF THE VALUE OF THE STOLEN ITEMS WAS INSUFFICIENT; GRAND LARCENY 3RD DEGREE CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the grand larceny third degree charged was against the weight of the evidence because the value of the stolen items was not proven:

The People were required to establish that the market value of the stolen items at the time of the crime exceeded $3,000 (see Penal Law § 155.20[1]). Here, the stolen property consisted of two handguns, several items of jewelry, and a computer tablet. The complainant testified that (1) the purchase price of the .40 caliber Smith & Wesson automatic handgun was $800 and that he purchased it “[a]pproximately four years” before the burglary; (2) the purchase price of the .380 Ruger automatic handgun was $600 and that he purchased it “[t]wo years” before the burglary; and (3) he cleaned both guns regularly, and they were both operable. The People’s ballistics expert testified that the retail value of each firearm was “anywhere from $500 to $1,000.”

However, the only evidence of the value of the remaining stolen items was the complainant’s testimony regarding the purchase price of some of those items, and he did not testify as to when he purchased those items, their market value, or the cost to replace them. Although a “victim is competent to supply evidence of original cost” … , “evidence of the original purchase price, without more, will not satisfy the People’s burden” … . On this record, we cannot conclude that the fact-finder could “reasonably infer, rather than merely speculate” that the value of all of the stolen goods exceeded the statutory threshold of $3,000 … . Accordingly, we find that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the value of the property taken exceeded $3,000 … . People v Rivera, 2020 NY Slip Op 01192, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

/ , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD THE MANDATORY STATUTORY HEARING; APPEAL IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF LASTING CONSEQUENCES OF THE ‘DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER’ FINDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel because the attorney conceded defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder. County Court should have held the mandatory statutory hearing. The appeal is not academic because of the lasting effect of the finding defendant suffers from a dangerous mental disorder:

Although the commitment order has expired by its own terms, the appeal is not academic because the County Court’s determination that the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder has lasting consequences that will affect all future proceedings regarding his commitment and release … .

The initial hearing under CPL 330.20(6) is a critical stage of the proceedings during which the defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel … . Here, there was simply no legitimate strategy that could have warranted defense counsel’s concession that the defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder, implicitly consenting to the defendant’s confinement in a secure facility … . As defense counsel failed to provide meaningful representation, the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel … .

Neither the defendant’s nor defense counsel’s concession to a finding of dangerous mental disorder can relieve the County Court from the obligation to provide the initial statutory hearing, which is mandatory (see CPL 330.20[6] … ). People v Juan R., 2020 NY Slip Op 01190, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

/ , ,

‘ANDERS’ BRIEF DEFICIENT; NEW COUNSEL ASSIGNED FOR THE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the “Anders” appellate brief submitted by counsel was deficient and assigned new counsel for the appeal:

The brief submitted by the appellant’s counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738) is deficient because it fails to contain an adequate statement of facts and fails to analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal … . The statement of facts does not review, in any detail, the Supreme Court’s advisements to the appellant regarding the rights he was waiving, the inquiries made of the appellant to ensure that the admission was knowingly and voluntarily entered, or the appellant’s responses to any of those advisements and inquiries … . Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel fulfilled his obligations under Anders v California, we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant … . People v Morales, 2020 NY Slip Op 01188, Second Dept 2-19-20

Similar issues and result in People v Santos, 2020 NY Slip Op 01193, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

/

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT STARTED UNTIL 22 MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENT; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined defendant should have been afforded a hearing on his motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation. Defendant was charged with damaging his wife’s computer in a domestic incident. The charge was not brought for 22 months:

“[U]nder state due process principles, lengthy and unjustifiable delay in commencing the prosecution may require dismissal even though no actual prejudice to the defendant is shown'” … . However, ” a determination made in good faith to defer commencement of the prosecution for further investigation or for other sufficient reasons, will not deprive the defendant of due process of law even though the delay may cause some prejudice to the defense'” … .. “Where there has been extended delay, it is the People’s burden to establish good cause” … .

Here, the County Court failed to appropriately balance the requisite factors and improperly denied, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of due process by the People’s unjustified delay in prosecution. Under the circumstances presented, which included a delay of approximately 22 months from the time of the incident to the filing of the indictment and arraignment, the People’s failure on the record to establish a good faith legitimate reason for the delay, and the defendant’s claim of prejudice, the County Court should have conducted a hearing before determining that the delay in prosecution was not in violation of the defendant’s due process rights … . People v Clark, 2020 NY Slip Op 01180, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

/ ,

JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE ‘COMBAT BY AGREEMENT’ EXCEPTION TO THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).

Although the error was deemed harmless, the Second Department determined the jury should not have been instructed on the “combat by agreement” exception to the justification defense. Defendant was on a bus when rival gang members got on the bus. Defendant (14 years old) pulled out a gun and shot, killing an innocent passenger:

Supreme Court should not have charged the jury with respect to the combat by agreement exception to the justification defense. The court granted the People’s request for the instruction based upon generalized evidence that the defendant was a member of a gang which had a rivalry with other local gangs, including the gang with which the persons who approached the defendant were affiliated. However, any evidence of an alleged agreement in this case was tacit, open-ended as to time and place, and applicable to all members of the gangs of the parties involved as well as to all members of their affiliate gangs. The combat by agreement exception to justification is generally limited to agreements to combat between specific individuals or small groups on discrete occasions … . As there was no evidence of a combat agreement between the defendant and the specific persons who approached him on the bus, or among rival gang members during a discrete period of time or at a specific location, there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the combat by agreement exception applied to negate a justification defense in this case … . People v Anderson, 2020 NY Slip Op 01179, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

/ , ,

SCHOOL-GROUNDS-PROXIMITY-RESIDENCE PROHIBITION APPLIED TO PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE WAS BEING PAROLED WAS BURGLARY; SECOND DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE BY THE THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS; APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and disagreeing with the Third and Fourth Departments, determined Executive Law 259-c (14), which prohibits sex offenders from entering school grounds, applied to petitioner in this habeas corpus proceeding. Petitioner had been designated a level three sex offender and was subsequently arrested and incarcerated for burglary. He was not released on parole for the burglary conviction when his sentence was complete because housing which complied with the school-grounds condition could not be found. Although the habeas corpus petition was moot because defendant had been released at the time of the appeal, the exception to the mootness doctrine allowed appellate review:

Executive Law § 259-c(14) provides, in relevant part, that “where a person serving a sentence for an offense defined in [Penal Law articles 130, 135, or 263, or Penal Law §§ 255.25, 255.26, or 255.27] and the victim of such offense was under the age of [18] at the time of such offense or such person has been designated a level three sex offender pursuant to [Correction Law § 168-l(6)], is released on parole or conditionally released pursuant to [Executive Law § 259-c(1) or (2)], the [Board of Parole] shall require, as a mandatory condition of such release, that such sentenced offender shall refrain from knowingly entering into or upon any school grounds, as that term is defined in [Penal Law § 220.00(14)], . . . while one or more of such persons under the age of [18] are present.”

As a result of its inartful wording and use of the term “such person,” Executive Law § 259-c(14) has been interpreted in opposing fashion by the Appellate Division, Third Department (see People ex rel. Negron v Superintendent Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 170 AD3d 12) and the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (see People ex rel. Garcia v Annucci, 167 AD3d 199). Inasmuch as the statute is amenable to competing interpretations, we agree with the appellants that the language of the statute is ambiguous and should be interpreted with reference to its legislative history and the purpose of the enactment of the 2005 amendment … . The legislative history clearly supports an interpretation that imposes the SARA [Sexual Assault Reform Act]-residency requirement based on either an offender’s conviction of a specifically enumerated offense against an underage victim or the offender’s status as a level three sex offender … . People ex rel. Rosario v Superintendent, Fishkill Corr. Facility, 2020 NY Slip Op 01178, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this stairway slip and fall case. Plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall and handrails were not required:

In a premises liability case, a defendant moving for summary judgment can establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of negligent maintenance by showing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her accident … . “Although proximate cause can be established in the absence of direct evidence of causation [and] . . . may be inferred from the facts and circumstances underlying the injury, [m]ere speculation as to the cause of a fall, where there can be many causes, is fatal to a cause of action” … . Where it is just as likely that some factor other than a dangerous or defective condition, such as a misstep or a loss of balance, could have caused an accident, any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation … . Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony. Based upon the plaintiff’s testimony that she did not know what caused her to lose her footing, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the issue of negligent maintenance … . Gaither-Angus v Adelphi Univ., 2020 NY Slip Op 01147, Second Dept 2-19-20​

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF WAS LEANING INSIDE THE OPEN DOOR OF A VAN WHEN THE VAN SUDDENLY MOVED FORWARD; THE RELATED VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE PER SE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in this vehicle-injury case should have been granted. Plaintiff was leaning into the open sliding door of a van when the van suddenly moved forward. Plaintiff sued the owner of the van (J & D) and the driver. The related violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constituted negligence per se:

A violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law … . Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting uncontroverted evidence that the driver stepped on the gas pedal while she was leaning into the vehicle, causing the vehicle to move forward and her to be injured by the sliding of the minivan’s door into her back (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1162 … ). This negligence can be imputed to J & D, which was the owner of the vehicle, through the presumption that the operator was driving the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied consent (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388[1]). Edwards v J&D Express Serv. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01145, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

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