You are here: / Evidence
,

IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HE DID NOT SEE PLAINTIFF’S BRAKE LIGHTS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that allegation defendant did not see plaintiff’s brake lights in this rear-end collision case did not raise a question of fact about whether brake lights were not functioning:

… [T]he defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his claim that he did not see brake lights on the plaintiffs’ vehicle prior to the collision, standing alone, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether an alleged malfunction of the brake lights on the plaintiffs’ vehicle proximately caused the accident … . Quintanilla v Mark, 2022 NY Slip Op 06151, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: In this rear-end collision case, the defendant’s allegation he did not see plaintiff’s brake lights did not raise a question of fact about whether the brake lights were functioning properly.

 

, ,

AN APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A SUPPRESSION RULING GROUNDED ON A THEORY NOT RELIED UPON OR ARGUED BY THE PARTIES AS LONG AS THE RULING IS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AND IS FULLY LAID OUT AND EXPLAINED BY THE MOTION COURT; HERE THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY AND THE EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined: (1) the appellate court can consider an appeal of a suppression ruling which was not based on a theory argued by the parties below, but which was based upon the hearing evidence and fully laid out and explained by the motion court; and (2) the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and the evidence seized from defendant’s vehicle should have been suppressed:

The narrow reading of Tates [189 AD3d 1088] advocated by the People is consistent with the approach taken by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, and the Appellate Division, First Department, in comparable cases involving the suppression court’s application of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement …  The general rule articulated in these cases is that the suppression court is “entitled to consider legal justifications that were supported by the evidence, even if they were not raised explicitly by the People” … . * * *

“[A]bsent probable cause, it is unlawful for a police officer to invade the interior of a stopped vehicle once the suspects have been removed and patted down without incident, as any immediate threat to the officers’ safety has consequently been eliminated” … . Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime … .

Here, “the circumstances known to the police at the time of the search did not rise to the level of probable cause” … . People v Marcial, 2022 NY Slip Op 06142, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: An appellate court may consider a suppression court’s ruling which is grounded upon a theory (here the automobile exception to the warrant requirement) not raised or argued by the parties, as long as the ruling is based upon the evidence and is fully laid out and explained by the motion court.

Practice Point: Here the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and the evidence seized from defendant’s vehicle should have been suppressed.

 

, ,

THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE COMBINED WITH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS GAVE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION; THE TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert in this medical malpractice action should not have been precluded from testifying on the ground the expert disclosure did not provide notice of topic the expert was prepared to testify about. The notice, in combination, with the pleadings was deemed to have provided sufficient notice. The essence of the complaint was defendant doctor’s (Ascencio’s) alleged failure to diagnose and treat a surgery-related infection. Plaintiff’s expert was going to testify the infection originated internally:

… [T]he Supreme Court precluded the plaintiff’s expert from testifying regarding his opinion that the plaintiff’s infection originated internally during the surgery on the ground that the expert disclosure referenced only the alleged failure to timely diagnose and appropriately treat a postoperative wound infection. However, in light of the other allegations in the expert disclosure and the incorporated bills of particulars, including those that addressed the alleged failure to discover a “festering infection” and/or a “surgical site infection” prior to the plaintiff’s discharge, “‘the expert witness [disclosure] statement was not so inadequate or inconsistent with the expert’s [proposed] testimony as to have been misleading, or to have resulted in prejudice or surprise'” … . Moreover, in this “prototypical battle of the experts” … , the preclusion of expert testimony concerning the origin of the plaintiff’s infection, and its effect on Ascencio’s alleged ability to discover the infection prior to the plaintiff’s discharge, prejudiced the plaintiff in presenting her case, such that the error cannot be deemed harmless … . Owens v Ascencio, 2022 NY Slip Op 06133, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff’s expert’s disclosure notice, in combination with the bill of particulars, sufficiently alerted defendants to the nature of the expert’s opinion. The preclusion of the expert’s testimony was reversible error.

 

, ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF’S 50-H EXAMINATION TESTIMONY DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE “FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT” DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition directly contradicted his testimony at the General Municipal Law 50-h examination:

“[A] defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing, inter alia, that it did not create the alleged hazardous condition” … . Here, the defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not engage in any snow removal activity within the subject triangular area, and therefore was not responsible for creating the icy condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which he averred that, in the afternoon of the day before his accident, he “observed City personnel shoveling the snow from the [subject triangular area] and making piles of snow upon the perimeters.” Yet, at his examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, the plaintiff had been asked “At any point between the snowfall and the morning before the accident happened, had you seen anyone clearing snow from that [triangular area],” and he had responded “No, no.” Since the assertion made for the first time in the plaintiff’s affidavit directly contradicted the testimony he had given at his General Municipal Law § 50-h examination, and he has not provided a plausible explanation for the inconsistency between the two statements, the assertion made in his affidavit must be viewed as presenting a feigned factual issue designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier testimony, and it is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Nass v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 06132, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s 50-h examination testimony directly contradicted his affidavit opposing defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The “feigned issue of fact” did not raise a question of fact.

 

,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant demonstrated it did not have constructive notice of the wet condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall:

Defendant demonstrated prima facie that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition by producing evidence of its maintenance activities on the day of the accident, specifically, that the wet condition did not exist when the stairs were cleaned by the porter less than three hours before plaintiff fell … , and that there were no complaints about a wet condition on the stairs in the morning prior to her accident … . Defendant was not required to produce a written schedule or log of its cleaning activities; the unrefuted testimony of its porter was sufficient. The porter’s testimony also established that there was a reasonable cleaning schedule in place that addressed the alleged ongoing and recurring condition … .

Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact concerning who created the wet condition and when … . Plaintiff presented no evidence that the ongoing and recurring condition was routinely left unaddressed by defendant, nor did she raise a factual issue that defendant’s cleaning routine “was manifestly unreasonable so as to require altering it” … . Hartley v Burnside Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 06065, First Dept 10-27-22

Practice Point: The defendant demonstrated it did not have constructive knowledge of the wet condition alleged to have cause plaintiff’s slip and fall by showing the stairs were cleaned three hours before the fall and no one had complained about the wet condition in the morning prior to the fall.

 

, , ,

THE CERTIFICATION OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT EXECUTED THE CONTRACT, BUT THAT EVIDENCE CREATES ONLY A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION; PLAINTIFF PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT SIGNED THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the certification of acknowledgment is prima facie proof the contract was executed by decedent but the certification only creates a rebuttable presumption:

… [T]he agreement was notarized by defendant Rosemary Bellini. “Certification of the acknowledgment or proof of a writing . . . in the manner prescribed by law for taking and certifying the acknowledgment or proof of a conveyance of real property within the state is prima facie evidence that it was executed by the person who purported to do so” (CPLR 4538). * * *

“The certification of acknowledgment becomes prima facie evidence that the writing was executed by the person who acknowledged having done so. [This] [p]rima facie evidence” is not conclusive; rather, it “creates a rebuttable presumption” … .  Plaintiff marshalled considerable evidence casting doubt on whether decedent actually signed the purported agreement and, if so, whether he knew or understood what he was signing. Thus, plaintiff should be given a chance to rebut the presumption created by Bellini’s notarization … . Langbert v Aconsky, 2022 NY Slip Op 06067, First Dept 10-27-22

Practice Point: Here the certification of acknowledgment was prima facie proof decedent signed the agreement but that proof only creates a rebuttable presumption. But plaintiff raised a question of fact whether decedent actually executed the agreement.

 

, , ,

THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE TRIALS OF TWO ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE SAME FIRE, WHERE ONE PARTY WAS BOTH A DEFENDANT AND A PLAINTIFF, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ANY PREJUDICE RESULTING FROM THE JURY’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF INSURANCE (ONE OF THE ACTIONS IS AGAINST AN INSURER) CAN BE HANDLED WITH JURY INSTRUCTIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the motion to consolidate the trials of two actions stemming from the same fire which damages two adjoining properties should have been granted. The court noted that one party is both a plaintiff and a defendant:

Although a motion pursuant to CPLR 602(a) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court … , consolidation or joinder for trial is favored to avoid unnecessary duplication of trials, save unnecessary costs and expense, and prevent an injustice which would result from divergent decisions based on the same facts … . “Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion [pursuant to CPLR 602(a)] to consolidate [or for a joint trial] should be granted, absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion” … .

Here … the two actions involve common questions of law and fact. Assuming, arguendo, that the respondents would be prejudiced if the two actions are tried before the same jury since it would bring to the jury’s attention the existence of insurance … , any such prejudice is outweighed by the possibility of inconsistent verdicts if separate trials ensue … . Furthermore, the possibility of such prejudice can be mitigated by appropriate jury instructions … . Moreover, a joint trial, rather than consolidation, is appropriate where a party is both a plaintiff and a defendant … . Calle v 2118 Flatbush Ave. Realty, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05981, Second Dept 10-26-22

Practice Point: Here the motion pursuant to CPLR 602 to consolidate the trials of two actions stemming from the same fire should have been granted. One party was both a defendant and a plaintiff. The fact that consolidation would bring the existence of insurance to the jury’s attention (one of the parties is an insurer), although prejudicial, can be handled by jury instructions.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE WRONG TYPEFACE IN THE RPAPL 1303 NOTICE REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the typeface requirements for the RPAPL 1303 notice. Therefore plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied:

RPAPL 1303 “requires the foreclosing party to deliver, along with the summons and complaint, a notice titled ‘Help for Homeowners in Foreclosure’ in residential foreclosure actions involving owner-occupied, one-to-four family dwellings. The statute mandates that the notice include specific language relating to the summons and complaint, sources of information and assistance, rights and obligations, and foreclosure rescue scams. It also mandates that the notice be in bold, 14-point type and printed on colored paper that is other than the color of the summons and complaint, and that the title of the notice be in bold, 20-point type” … . “Proper service of the notice required by RPAPL 1303 . . . 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, the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden since it is not apparent upon review of the copy of the RPAPL 1303 notice served upon the defendant that the correct typeface was utilized. In addition, the process server’s affidavit of service did not indicate that the notice served upon the defendant complied with all of the requirements of RPAPL 1303, including the proper typeface … . MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Assim, 2022 NY Slip Op 06000, Second Dept 10-26-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must strictly comply with the notice requirements in RPAPL 1303, including the size of the typeface. The use of the wrong typeface precludes the commencement of the action.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIVE HOUSING COUNSELING AGENCIES LISTED IN THE RPAPL 1304 WERE DESIGNATED BY THE NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the five housing counseling agencies listed on the 90-day notice were designated by the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) at the time the notice was sent:

“It is the plaintiff’s burden, on its motion for summary judgment, to demonstrate its strict compliance with the applicable provisions of RPAPL 1304” … . As relevant here, RPAPL 1304(2) … required that the 90-day notice sent to the borrower “contain a list of at least five housing counseling agencies as designated by the division of housing and community renewal, that serve the region where the borrower resides,” and that the lists of designated agencies published on the websites of the New York State Department of Financial Services (hereinafter DFS) and the DHCR be used by the lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer to meet these requirements … .

… [P]laintiff failed to establish … its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304(2), as it failed to demonstrate that the five entities listed on the 90-day notices sent to the defendant were designated by the DHCR as of when the notices were sent … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Maldonado, 2022 NY Slip Op 05974, Second Dept 10-26-22

Practice Point: If the bank in a foreclosure action does not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice requirements in RPAPL 1304 it is not entitled to summary judgment. At time of this action, RPAPL 1304 required that five housing counseling agencies be listed in the RPAPL 1304 notice and that the agencies be designated by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). Here the bank didn’t demonstrate the five agencies were so designated so its motion for summary judgment shouldn’t have been granted.

 

,

THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT SUBMITTED; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should not have been confirmed because the business records upon which the referee’s calculations were based were not submitted:

Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. “The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . However, computations based on the “review of unidentified and unproduced business records . . . constitute[ ] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ ] probative value” … . Although the plaintiff contends that the referee’s report was supported by the affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer, the plaintiff did not submit the business records upon which that employee purportedly relied in computing the total amount due on the mortgage. Consequently, the referee’s findings in that regard were not substantially supported by the record … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Conforti, 2022 NY Slip Op 05973, Second Dept 10-26-22

Practice Point: Here the calculations in the referee’s report were based upon business records which were not submitted. Therefore the report was not supported by the record and should not have been confirmed.

 

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