You are here: / THE POLICE-OFFICER WITNESS, WHO DID TESTIFY AT TRIAL, DID NOT REMEMBER...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE POLICE-OFFICER WITNESS, WHO DID TESTIFY AT TRIAL, DID NOT REMEMBER THE INCIDENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED AS PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED BECAUSE THE WITNESS TESTIFIED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined that the police-officer witness’s grand jury testimony was properly admitted under the “past recollection recorded” exception to the hearsay rule. The grand jury testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the officer, who could not remember the incident he described to the grand jury, did, in fact, testify at trial:

The foundational requirements for the admissibility of a past recollection recorded are: 1) the witness must have observed the matter recorded; 2) the recollection must have been fairly fresh at the time when it was recorded; 3) the witness must currently be able to testify that the record is a correct representation of his or her knowledge and recollection at the time it was made; and 4) the witness must lack sufficient present recollection of the information recorded … . “When such a memorandum is admitted, it is not independent evidence of the facts contained therein, but is supplementary to the testimony of the witness. * * *

… [T]he right to confrontation guarantees not only the right to cross-examine all witnesses, but also the ability to literally confront the witness who is providing testimony against the accused in a face-to-face encounter before the trier of fact … . The Confrontation Clause is satisfied when these requirements are fulfilled — even if the witness’s memory is faulty. The United States Supreme Court has directly addressed the situation where a witness was unable to explain the basis for a prior out-of-court identification due to memory loss … . In Owens, the Court held that “[t]he Confrontation Clause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish” … . To that end, “[i]t is sufficient that the defendant has the opportunity to bring out such matters as the witness’ bias, his lack of care and attentiveness, his poor eyesight, and even (what is often a prime objective of cross-examination), . . . the very fact that he has a bad memory” … . People v Tapia, 2019 NY Slip Op 02442, CtApp 4-2-19

 

/

PETITIONER, A CORPORATION OPERATING A BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY, WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES, THEREFORE PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO RPTL 704 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined that the petitioner, which did not own the property during the years the property tax assessments were challenged, lacked standing pursuant to RPTL 704. The property was owned by a trust during the relevant years, and petitioner is a family corporation which operates a House of Pancakes franchise on the property. The property held by the trust was transferred to Portia DeGast in 2013. She is the president of petitioner corporation, which had paid all the property. The tax years in issue were 2010 – 2013:

… [T]he parties agree that, during the relevant years, petitioner was not the owner of the subject property, nor was petitioner legally bound to pay the real property taxes. * * * … [P]etitioner here was not “legally responsible” for paying the undivided tax liability … . * * *

… Portia DeGast [is not] an aggrieved party based on her status as a beneficiary of the … Trust. The parties agree that, during the relevant years, the trust itself — not Ms. DeGast — owned the subject property. Like petitioner, Ms. DeGast was not authorized to pursue an article 7 proceeding on the property owner’s behalf. And, like petitioner, Ms. DeGast lacked any legal obligation to pay the real property taxes; to the contrary, the terms of the … Trust explicitly authorized beneficiaries to “enjoy the assets held by the trust without rent or other compensation to the trust, such as by occupying the trust’s real property” … . In any event, the petitioner in this matter is the …Pancake House — not Ms. DeGast. Matter of Larchmont Pancake House v Board of Assessors, 2019 NY Slip Op 02441, CtApp 4-2-19

 

/

DEFENDANT’S SLOW MOVING TRUCK FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION, DIFFICULTY SEEING BECAUSE OF SUNLIGHT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A NON-NEGLIGENT EXCUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this traffic-accident case:

In this rear-end collision case, the fact that the truck owned and operated by defendants had entered onto the parkway one exit earlier than authorized by a permit issued by the Department of Transportation, standing alone, does not establish that the early entry onto the parkway was a proximate cause of the accident … . The record reflects that the accident occurred on a dry and sunny day with light traffic, that defendant Paolino was driving the truck slowly, and that Paolino had turned on the truck’s hazard lights. The truck’s presence on the parkway merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the accident, but not its cause … .

Plaintiffs’ proffered excuse for the accident, that the bright sunlight may have made it difficult for the decedent to see defendants’ truck driving through the tunnel, does not constitute a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collusion … . The affidavit by plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert is not based on any evidence and therefore fails to raise an issue of fact … . Battocchio v Paolino, 2019 NY Slip Op 02477, First Dept 4-2-19

 

/ ,

CONVERSION OF A HISTORIC LOWER MANHATTAN LANDMARK, A RARE CLOCK AND CLOCK TOWER, TO A LUXURY APARTMENT WAS PROPERLY APPROVED BY THE NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC)  properly approved the redevelopment of 346 Broadway, a historic building in Lower Manhattan that the LPC had previously designated as a landmark. The redevelopment entailed conversion of an interior landmark (a clock) to a luxury apartment:

In its initial designation report, the LPC noted several of the building’s unique features. The exterior of the “palazzo-like tower,” constructed in “the neo-Italian Renaissance style,” was largely built with “white Tuckahoe marble.” The “interiors” were also “designed using the finest craftmanship and lavish materials” including “marble, bronze, [and] mahogany.” Among the interior spaces designated were the former “Banking Hall,” a “grand and boldly scaled neo-Classical room” with “monumental freestanding Corinthian columns, and “[t]he clock tower” which housed a “No. 4 Striking Tower Clock”—a mechanical clock driven “by a thousand pound weight” which “strikes the hours” with a hammer and a “5000 pound bell.” The clock was manufactured by E. Howard Watch & Clock Company and “was specially equipped with a double three-legged gravity escapement”—a feature, petitioners claim, is shared by only one other tower clock: the clock housed by Elizabeth Tower (also home to the bell known as Big Ben) in London. In total, the LPC landmarked 20,000 square feet out of the building’s total interior space of 420,000 square feet. * * *

… [T]the developer intended to keep the clock running electrically. …

…  [T]he LPC found that the developer’s plan would have “the main lobby, stair hall, clock tower rooms and banking hall . . . fully restored.” Additionally, it would “allow accessibility by the public to the lobby and former banking hall.” The LPC also found that “the clock mechanism and faces will be retained, thereby preserving these significant features.” In sum, the LPC found that “the proposed restorative work will return . . . the interior closer to [its] original appearance, and will aid in [its] long-term preservation.”

FROM JUDGE RIVERA’S DISSENT:

Notwithstanding the historical significance of the clock to the City, the LPC approved the building owner’s request to convert this interior landmark into a luxury apartment. The former is a rare horological masterpiece; the latter is a typical, now-commonplace, development for the wealthy by the wealthy. Although the LPC has great latitude to decide whether to approve an alteration to an interior landmark, it cannot approve an alteration that, by its very nature, amounts to a de facto rescission of a landmark designation. So, the question is, when is an interior landmark no longer an interior landmark? The answer is contained in the plain language of the Landmarks Preservation Law, which defines an interior landmark as accessible to the public for the people’s benefit and welfare. Transforming an interior landmark into a private residence such that it is completely closed off from the public, annuls its designation and is inconsistent with the purpose of the Landmarks Preservation Law. Matter of Save America’s Clocks, Inc. v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 02385, CtApp 3-28-19

 

/ , ,

CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS’ AUTHORIZATION OF THE CONDOMINIUM BOARD TO CHALLENGE THE CONDOMINIUM’S REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT REMAINS VALID FOR SUBSEQUENT TAX YEARS UNLESS CANCELED OR RETRACTED, THERE IS NO NEED FOR YEARLY AUTHORIZATIONS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that a condominium board of managers need only seek one authorization from condominium unit owners to challenge the condominium’s real property tax assessment  The authorization is deemed to remain in effect in subsequent tax years unless canceled or retracted:

This appeal presents the question whether Real Property Law § 339-y (4) requires a condominium board of managers to obtain a separate authorization from each condominium unit owner granting the board authority to proceed on behalf of that owner for each tax year in which the board challenges the condominium’s real property tax assessment. We conclude that section 339-y (4) allows a standing authorization issued by an owner to confer authority upon a board to act on behalf of that owner for the tax year in which that authorization was issued and in all subsequent tax years, unless such authorization is canceled or retracted. Matter of Eastbrooke Condominium v Ainsworth, 2019 NY Slip Op 02384, CtApp 3-28-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL, DESPITE COUNSEL’S LIMITED COMMUNICATION WITH DEFENDANT, COUNSEL’S NOT ACTING UNTIL THE APPEAL WAS ON THE DISMISSAL CALENDAR, AND COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION OF A MINIMAL BRIEF WITH SIX LINES OF TEXT IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND NO CITATIONS TO THE RECORD, WHICH INCLUDED A 4000 PAGE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over two separate, extensive dissenting opinions, determined defendant was not afforded ineffective assistance by his appellate counsel. The majority acknowledged that the appellate brief was “terse” and was not a model to be emulated, but noted the brief raised substantive issues that were addressed by the Appellate Division on the merits. The failure to raise the harsh and excessive sentence issue, and the failure to seek review by the Court of Appeals did not constitute ineffective assistance:

FROM JUDGE RIVERA’S DISSENT:

… [D]efendant maintains that counsel was ineffective because he initially failed to perfect the appeal, causing the Appellate Division to place the matter on the court’s Dismissal Calendar, thus risking the loss of defendant’s only appeal as of right … .

… [C]ounsel failed to communicate at all with his client in the three years following his appointment to represent defendant, and only as a late-day response to the Dismissal Calendar notification.  … * * *

The failings of the brief are substantial.  … The brief is barely 20 double-spaced pages, including separate pages for the cover, tables of contents and cases, CPLR 5531 statement, and issues presented. … Inexplicably, at the end of the facts section, appellate counsel inserted a photocopy of a six-page letter from trial counsel to the judge requesting an adjournment. The factual recitation consists of two pages and six lines of text. There is not a single citation in this section to the record on appeal, as required by the 1st Department’s Local Rule § 120.8 (b)(4) which requires an appellant’s brief to include a statement of facts “with appropriate citations to the . . . record.” This hardly seems adequate given defendant appealed from a judgment following a three-month joint trial with two co-defendants, resulting in a trial transcript spanning over 4,000 pages, and involving multiple serious counts, including murder. In contrast, the People submitted a brief over 175 pages long, with 60 pages solely devoted to the facts. People v Alvarez, 2019 NY Slip Op 02383, CtApp 3-28-19

 

/ , ,

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, BASED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence should not have been granted in this breach of contract action. Plaintiff and defendant had entered a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) in which plaintiff agreed to purchase defendant, Symbio, for between $100 and $110 million. The opinion is fact specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Plaintiff’s claims are not definitively contradicted by the documentary evidence. The record (to the extent there is one on this motion pursuant to CPLR 3211) demonstrates the existence of issues of fact concerning when plaintiff determined that there was a matter that might give rise to a right of indemnification so that it was required to give notice pursuant to section 8.03(a) of the parties’ contract. …

Further, defendants’ defense of a condition precedent is not conclusively established. Even if section 8.03(a) might be construed as a condition precedent (which is highly doubtful), there has been no showing regarding the materiality of the provision as would be necessary given that nonoccurrence of the condition would lead to a draconian forfeiture.  XI Lux Holdco S.A.R.L. v SIC Holdings, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02437, First Dept 3-28-19

 

/ , ,

ACTION BASED UPON FAILURE TO SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A HOSPITAL REST ROOM SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action, which alleged inadequate supervision when plaintiff used a hospital rest room, sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore the action was time-barred:

Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to properly assess her condition and the degree of her supervisory needs in the restroom, a claim sounding in medical malpractice, and her action, brought three years after her injuries, is therefore untimely … . Because the loss of consortium claim is derivative of the injured plaintiff’s claim, that cause of action must also be dismissed as untimely … . Kim v New York Presbyt., 2019 NY Slip Op 02425, First Dept 3-28-19

 

/ ,

RELEVANT REGULATION, RATHER THAN THE POLICY LANGUAGE, CONTROLLED THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST ON INSURANCE POLICY PROCEEDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relevant regulation, as opposed to the less generous insurance policy provision, controlled the payment of interest on policy proceeds:

Defendant[‘s] … insurer’s bare offer to pay the policy limit was not a “tender” of the policy for the purposes of stopping the accrual of prejudgment interest under 11 NYCRR 60-1.1(b). While the policy provides that the insurer will pay interest on a judgment until “we have paid, offered to pay or deposited in court the part of the judgment that is within our Limit of Insurance,” 11 NYCRR 60-1.1(b) requires the insurer to pay postjudgment interest until it has “paid or tendered or deposited in court” the part of the judgment that does not exceed the policy limit. As the policy language is less generous to the insured than the regulation, it is deemed superseded by the regulation … . Within that framework, a bare offer to pay does not constitute a tender. Thus, interest must be calculated from the date of entry of the order that granted summary judgment to plaintiff until the date of payment … . Gyabaah v Rivlab Transp. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02417, First Dept 3-28-19

 

/ ,

NO PROOF NOTE WAS IN POSSESSION OF PLAINTIFF WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence of standing was insufficient and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The majority held there was no proof the plaintiff was in possession of the note when the action was brought:

On or about September 17, 2014, plaintiff executed a power of attorney appointing Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen) as its attorney-in-fact with power to enforce its rights with regard to loans included in the PSA [pooling and service agreement].

Two years after that, on October 19, 2016, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit by Kyle Lucas, an employee of a company whose indirect subsidiary is Ocwen. Lucas alleged that plaintiff had had physical possession of the note since June 6, 2007, but he failed to identify any document which provided the basis for his knowledge. A copy of defendant’s note, endorsed in blank … , was attached to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. However, there is nothing in the record that proves when the note was physically delivered to plaintiff. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Guevara, 2019 NY Slip Op 02412, First Dept 3-28-19

 

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