You are here: / ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT IN A GARAGE WHERE METHAMPHETAMINE WAS BEING...

Search Results

/ ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT IN A GARAGE WHERE METHAMPHETAMINE WAS BEING MANUFACTURED, THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SHE CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS, POSSESSION CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance and dismissed the indictment. Defendant’s presence in a garage where methamphetamine was being manufactured was not enough to support the People’s theory she constructively possessed the drugs. The facts that defendant had admitted to using methamphetamine in the past and had recently purchase a legal allergy drug which can be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine did not demonstrate her exercise of dominion and control over the drugs in the garage:

As defendant was not found to be in physical possession of methamphetamine, the People proceeded against her on a theory of constructive possession. Thus, it was their burden to establish that she “exercise[d] dominion or control” over the methamphetamine in the one-pot or the area where it was found (Penal Law § 10.00 [8]…) . Defendant’s mere presence in the garage where the methamphetamine was found is not enough, standing alone, to establish dominion or control … . There were no other indicators that defendant had dominion or control over the garage or of the property where it was located; she did not reside there, and there was no evidence that she had keys, kept belongings there or frequently spent time there … . The People argue that the couch where defendant said she was napping was near the shelf where the one-pot containing methamphetamine was found … , and they emphasize the one-pot’s presence in plain view, the smoke and chemical odor noticed by the police officer and the presence in the garage of various substances and tools used to produce methamphetamine. However, knowledge of the presence of an illegal substance does not, without more, meet the People’s burden to demonstrate that a defendant “had the ability and intent to exercise dominion or control over the contraband” … . People v Yerian, 2018 NY Slip Op 04981, Third Dept 7-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT IN A GARAGE WHERE METHAMPHETAMINE WAS BEING MANUFACTURED, THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SHE CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS, POSSESSION CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT IN A GARAGE WHERE METHAMPHETAMINE WAS BEING MANUFACTURED, THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SHE CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS, POSSESSION CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT IN A GARAGE WHERE METHAMPHETAMINE WAS BEING MANUFACTURED, THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SHE CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS, POSSESSION CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/DOMINION AND CONTROL (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT IN A GARAGE WHERE METHAMPHETAMINE WAS BEING MANUFACTURED, THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SHE CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS, POSSESSION CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/METHAMPHETAMINE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT IN A GARAGE WHERE METHAMPHETAMINE WAS BEING MANUFACTURED, THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE SHE CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE DRUGS, POSSESSION CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s criminal contempt and violation of probation convictions because the evidence of the offenses was the fruit of an illegal entry and search of defendant’s apartment. The attempt to justify the entry and search under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement was rejected. The police officer who entered defendant’s apartment, Carmichael, apparently expected that a man named Collins would be in the apartment with defendant. There was an order of protection prohibiting contact between the defendant and Collins:

We conclude that Carmichael’s testimony established that there was not an objectively reasonable basis for him to believe that there was an ongoing emergency in defendant’s apartment that required immediate assistance to protect life or property. Carmichael was aware that defendant was no longer incarcerated. There was no evidence that defendant’s apartment had been forcibly entered, nor was there any other indication of an ongoing crime or emergency. The low, muffled sound that he heard and the faint light that was seen through the window were consistent with an occupant watching television, a reasonable activity at that hour of night. … The police had been advised that Collins had been seen in the vicinity of defendant’s apartment during the evening in question, and they considered the possibility that he was at her apartment in violation of the order of protection. …

Further, even had Carmichael’s initial entry been lawful, his subsequent search of defendant’s apartment was not. A protective sweep is justified only when the police “have articulable facts upon which to believe that there is a person present who may pose a danger to those on the scene” … . People v Sears, 2018 NY Slip Op 04980, Third Dept 7-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/WARRANTLESS ENTRY AND SEARCH (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/HOME (CRIMINAL LAW, WARRANTLESS ENTRY AND SEARCH, EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/SEARCH (CRIMINAL LAW, WARRANTLESS ENTRY AND SEARCH, EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, (EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY ENTRY AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

/

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUESTS WAS MOOT, PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED AND WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS AND FEES, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to costs and fees associated with his FOIL request for information about the confidential informant in the case which led to petitioner’s conviction and incarceration. The state police did not timely respond to petitioner’s requests and eventually provided two police reports and a finding that the remainder of the requested information was exempt from disclosure. The “costs and fees” issue was still viable despite the fact that the proceeding was moot. The Third Department found that the petitioner had substantially prevailed and the state police had not met the time requirements associated with responding to petitioner’s requests:

A court is authorized to award a petitioner “reasonable [counsel] fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred” where he or she has “substantially prevailed” in the FOIL proceeding and, as relevant here, “the agency failed to respond to a request or appeal within the statutory time” … . “A petitioner ‘substantially prevail[s]’ under Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (c) when [he or she] ‘receive[s] all the information that [he or she] requested and to which [he or she] is entitled in response to the underlying FOIL litigation'”… , regardless of whether “full compliance with the statute was finally achieved” in the form of disclosure, a certification that responsive documents were exempt from disclosure or some combination thereof … . Significantly, the voluntariness of an agency’s disclosure after the commencement of a CPLR article 78 proceeding will not preclude a finding that a litigant has substantially prevailed … . Matter of Cobado v Benziger, 2018 NY Slip Op 04996, Third Dept 7-5-18

​FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) WAS MOOT, PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED AND WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS AND FEES, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL), DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) WAS MOOT, PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED AND WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS AND FEES, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/FEES AND COSTS  (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL), DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) WAS MOOT, PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED AND WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS AND FEES, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s convictions and dismissed the accusatory instruments because defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Counsel failed to moved to dismiss the prosecution on the ground that defendant’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. Had the motion been made, it would have succeeded:

Where, as here, a class A misdemeanor is the most serious offense of which a defendant is accused, the People have 90 days from the commencement of the criminal action to declare their readiness (see CPL 30.30 [1] [b]…). Compliance with this deadline is determined by “computing the time elapsed between the filing of the first accusatory instrument and the People’s declaration of readiness, subtracting any periods of delay that are excludable under the terms of the statute and then adding to the result any postreadiness periods of delay that are actually attributable to the People and are ineligible for an exclusion” … . Here, although the People declared their readiness 19 days after the accusatory instruments were filed and defendant was arraigned on the charges, they expressly stated at the subsequent appearance on February 9, 2015 that they were not ready for trial and sought an adjournment for the very purpose of trial preparation. The People did not thereafter declare their readiness until June 15, 2015, beyond the 90-day period. Thus, as the People acknowledge, defendant possessed a meritorious statutory speedy trial claim, and defense counsel’s failure to raise it in a pretrial motion to dismiss deprived defendant of meaningful representation … . People v Smart, 2018 NY Slip Op 04979, Third Dept 7-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/SPEEDY TRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

/

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S ILLNESS WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ORAL ARGUMENT, MERITORIOUS ACTION DEMONSTRATED, FIRST MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SECOND MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered when plaintiff did not appear at the argument on defendant’s motion to dismiss should have been granted. Plaintiff’s attorney’s illness was a reasonable excuse. The court noted that, although only one motion to vacate a default judgment is usually allowed, because Supreme Court denied the first motion “without prejudice” the second motion on the same grounds was not precluded:

… [T]he plaintiff’s excuse that its attorney failed to appear at oral argument due to illness, which excuse was corroborated by medical documentation, was reasonable under the circumstances presented … .. In addition, the plaintiff demonstrated a potentially meritorious opposition to [defendant’s] motion … .

A party ordinarily is precluded from making a second motion to vacate a default on the same ground raised in a prior motion to vacate the default … . However, because the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s first motion to vacate “without prejudice,” the plaintiff was not precluded from making a second motion to vacate its default on the same grounds raised in its prior motion. World O World Corp. v Anoufrieva, 2018 NY Slip Op 05075, Second Dept 7-5-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S ILLNESS WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ORAL ARGUMENT, MERITORIOUS ACTION DEMONSTRATED, FIRST MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SECOND MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015  (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S ILLNESS WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ORAL ARGUMENT, MERITORIOUS ACTION DEMONSTRATED, FIRST MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SECOND MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT  (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S ILLNESS WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ORAL ARGUMENT, MERITORIOUS ACTION DEMONSTRATED, FIRST MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SECOND MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT))/WITHOUT PREJUDICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S ILLNESS WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ORAL ARGUMENT, MERITORIOUS ACTION DEMONSTRATED, FIRST MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SECOND MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER MAY HAVE REMOVED ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE REMOVAL EFFORTS EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant homeowner’s motion for summary judgment in this snow-ice sidewalk slip and fall case should have been granted. Under the NYC Administrative Code the owner of a single-family residential home has no statutory duty to maintain the abutting sidewalk. Although there was evidence defendant removed ice and snow from the sidewalk, there was no showing the snow removal efforts exacerbated or created the dangerous condition:

While there is record evidence that the defendants may have engaged in snow removal efforts prior to the accident, the defendants cannot be held liable for the removal of snow and ice in an incomplete manner … . Since the plaintiff failed to submit evidentiary facts to show that the defendants’ snow removal efforts created or exacerbated an existing hazard, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Wise v Filincieri, 2018 NY Slip Op 05074, Second Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER MAY HAVE REMOVED ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE REMOVAL EFFORTS EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER MAY HAVE REMOVED ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE REMOVAL EFFORTS EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER MAY HAVE REMOVED ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE REMOVAL EFFORTS EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER MAY HAVE REMOVED ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE REMOVAL EFFORTS EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court in this contempt and modification of custody proceeding, determined Family Court should not have allowed father to represent himself without first making an inquiry to ensure father understood the consequences of going forward without an attorney. Although Family Court informed father that he should obtain counsel because he was misconstruing the law, and father was represented when the hearing resumed, one of the witnesses examined by father pro se was not recalled for examination by father’s attorney:

“A waiver of the right to counsel must be explicit and intentional, and the court must assure that it is made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily”… . Thus, the hearing court must “perform a searching inquiry to determine whether a party is aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel, which might include inquiry into the party’s age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures and other relevant factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, voluntary waiver” … . …

Supreme Court erred by commencing the hearing without first ascertaining that the father was unequivocally waiving his right to counsel and, if so, conducting an inquiry into whether that waiver was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made … . Although one of the two witnesses who testified while the father was pro se ultimately was recalled after the father obtained counsel, and was subjected to direct and cross-examination for a second time, the other witness — the caseworker — was not recalled and her testimony supported both of the mother’s petitions. Furthermore, the violation of a party’s statutory right to counsel “requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party’s position” and, therefore, we need not consider whether the mother would have succeeded on her modification petition absent the caseworker’s testimony … . Matter of Hensley v DeMun, 2018 NY Slip Op 04995, Third Dept 7-5-18

​FAMILY LAW (ATTORNEYS, FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW,  FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (THIRD DEPT))/PRO SE (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (THIRD DEPT))/WAIVER (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, FAMILY LAW,  FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (THIRD DEPT))

/

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action. The bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

In moving for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Timeka J. Motlow, a representative of its loan servicer, who stated that “[t]he records I have reviewed indicate that the attached 90-day pre-foreclosure notice was mailed to [the defendant] at the property address of the real estate at issue herein and to the last know address of the borrower(s).” However, Motlow did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing and failed to make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … .

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence the action … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Henderson, 2018 NY Slip Op 05071, Second Dept 7-5-18

​FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined there were questions of fact about whether a cluttered area at a day care center was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s falling and whether a bicycle ridden by a three-year-old was a dangerous instrument requiring supervision by the operator of the day care center. The plaintiff had picked up her infant when her three-year-old ran into her with the bicycle. Plaintiff alleged that, had the area not been cluttered with toys and furniture, she could have avoided falling. The dissenters argued that the bicycle was not a dangerous instrument and the negligent supervision cause of action failed as a matter of law:

Here, the actions of the three-year-old child were unquestionably the precipitating factor in plaintiff’s accident. However, plaintiff explained that, after being struck by the bicycle, she attempted to regain her balance but was unable to because she was “trapped” between a table and an ottoman and could not take a step in any direction without tripping on one of the various objects scattered about the porch. She further averred that, had the floor not been so cluttered with toys, objects and furniture, she would have been able to regain her balance before falling. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and affording her the benefit of every favorable inference that may be drawn therefrom … , we find a triable issue of fact as to whether the condition of the porch was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . …

As the Court of Appeals has explained, “[c]hildren might, at various points in their development, be permitted, and properly so, to use bicycles, lawn mowers, power tools, motorcycles, or automobiles, all of which are, in some contingencies, ‘dangerous instruments'” … . “[T]he determination of whether a particular instrument is dangerous ‘depends upon the nature and complexity of the allegedly dangerous instrument, the age, intelligence and experience of the child, and his [or her] proficiency with the instrument'”… . Pineiro v Rush, 2018 NY Slip Op 04994, Third Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION  (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/BICYCLES (DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (DAY CARE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))/DAY CARE (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

A TREE FELL ON THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD INSPECTED THE TREE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant town’s motion for summary judgment in this tree-fall accident should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged a tree near the roadway fell on the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger:

Municipalities have a duty to maintain their roadways in a reasonably safe condition, and this duty extends to trees adjacent to the road which could pose a danger to travelers … . Municipalities also possess a common-law duty to inspect trees adjacent to their roadways … .

Here, the Town did not establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because it failed to demonstrate that it met its duty to inspect and maintain the subject tree, or that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition of the tree … . Schillaci v Town of Islip, 2018 NY Slip Op 05070, Second Dept 7-5-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, A TREE FELL ON THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD INSPECTED THE TREE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, TREES, ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, A TREE FELL ON THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD INSPECTED THE TREE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT))/TREES (MUNICIPAL LAW, HIGHWAYS AND ROADS, A TREE FELL ON THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD INSPECTED THE TREE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, TREES, A TREE FELL ON THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD INSPECTED THE TREE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE (SECOND DEPT))

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