You are here: / Evidence
, ,

MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT WHICH ECUADORIAN STATUTE IS MOST CLOSELY ANALOGOUS TO NEW YORK’S FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE CRITERIA FOR PURPOSES OF NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE; HERE THE ACTION ACCRUED IN ECUADOR; THE SHORTER OF THE APPLICABLE ECUADORIAN AND NEW YORK STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS WILL APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter for consideration of the expert evidence, determined Supreme Court may have applied the wrong Ecuadorian statute in the analysis of the statute of limitations under the borrowing statute:

Under CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute,” where a nonresident plaintiff sues on causes of action that accrued outside of New York, the claims must be timely under the limitations period of both New York and the jurisdiction where the action accrued … . In effect, the shorter of the two states’ statutes of limitations controls the timeliness of the action … . …

If the foreign state does not have causes of action directly analogous to the New York causes of action, the limitations period of the foreign causes of action that are most closely analogous to the New York claims are to be applied … . …

In performing the foregoing analysis, the motion court found applicable Ecuador’s default statute, which has a 10-year statute of limitations, and thereby found plaintiff’s claims timely filed, despite the expert testimony establishing that Ecuador’s default statute is not directly applicable to plaintiff’s fraudulent conveyance claims and not the Ecuadorian cause of action most closely analogous to the New York causes of action. Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd. v Occidental Petroleum Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 00481, First Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: Here the fraudulent conveyance action accrued in Ecuador. Under the borrowing statute the shorter of the New York and Ecuadorian statutes of limitations applies. Where, as here, there is no foreign statute exactly analogous to the New York cause of action, expert evidence about which foreign statute is most analogous should be considered.

 

, , ,

THE MAJORITY HELD THE RECORD WAS SILENT ON WHETHER THE POLICE, WHO DID NOT APPLY FOR A NO-KNOCK WARRANT, ENTERED THE APARTMENT WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE TO THE OCCUPANTS AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE CAN BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL UNDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS), THE RECORD SUPPORTED AN UNAUTHORIZED NO-KNOCK ENTRY AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the issue whether the police did not give proper notice to the occupants prior to entering and searching premises was not preserved for appeal. The two dissenters argued the issue can be addressed by the appellate court under the ineffective-assistance argument (no motion to suppress based on failure to provide proper notice before entering) and the seized evidence should have been suppressed. The police did not apply for a no-knock warrant and, according to the dissent, entered the apartment using a battering ram before announcing their presence:

… [T]he record is silent as to what the police said or did prior to effectuating entry into the apartment. Thus, without resort to inappropriate speculation, it simply cannot be concluded from the record before us that the police failed to knock and announce their presence before forcefully entering the apartment. * * *

From the dissent:

In our view, the record confirms, by the police officers’ own trial testimony, that they did not provide any advance notice prior to entering the apartment where defendant was ultimately apprehended. The record shows that members of the involved emergency response team (hereinafter ERT) entered the apartment through a rear door into a kitchen area that led to a living room. When asked how the door was opened, Jason Blowers — a police officer with the City of Johnstown Police Department — explained that “the breacher opened the door, the mechanical breach . . . . He hit the door with a ram.” Sergeant Michael Pendrick, the first member of the ERT to enter the apartment, confirmed as much, testifying: “[a]s we approached the rear apartment door . . . another officer had breached the door, the door popped open.” People v Hayward, 2023 NY Slip Op 00461, Third Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: The majority found the record silent on whether the police, who did not apply for a no-knock warrant, entered the apartment without giving proper notice to the occupants and held the issue was not preserved for appeal. The two-justice dissent argued the issue could be addressed on appeal as ineffective-assistance (failure to move to suppress) and the evidence demonstrated the police entered with a battering ram before announcing their presence.

 

, , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing or compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

“[A] plaintiff may demonstrate its standing in a foreclosure action through proof that it was in possession of the subject note endorsed in blank, or the subject note and a firmly affixed allonge endorsed in blank, at the time of commencement of the action” … . Although the plaintiff attached to the complaint copies of the note and a chain of purported allonges ending with an undated purported allonge endorsed in blank, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the purported allonges, which were on pieces of paper completely separate from the note, were “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof,” as required by UCC 3-202(2) … . …

Johnson’s [the foreclosure specialist’s] affidavit did not establish proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed …  Further, Johnson’s affidavit failed to address the nature of Fay’s [plaintiff’s loan servicer’s] relationship with LenderLive [third-party vendor which sent the RPAPL 1304 notice] and whether LenderLive’s records were incorporated into Fay’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business … . Thus, Johnson’s affidavit failed to lay a foundation for admission of the transaction report generated by LenderLive (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Finally, the tracking numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices submitted by the plaintiff, standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304 …) . US Bank N.A. v Okoye-Oyibo, 2023 NY Slip Op 00457, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: Here there was no evidence the allonge was firmly attached to the note; therefore the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action was not demonstrated.

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE EXACT AMOUNT OF DAMAGES HE SUFFERED FROM DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF CONTRACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s failure to submit evidence of the exact amount of damages he suffered due to defendant’s breach of contract. Therefore plaintiff should not have been awarded summary judgment:

“A motion for summary judgment should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility” … . “The function of the court on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve issues of fact or determine matters of credibility, but merely to determine whether such issues exist” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit competent evidence establishing the exact amount of damages that he sustained as a result of defendant’s breaches of the parties’ agreements, and “the record does not permit precise determination of the amount of the money judgment to which the plaintiff is entitled, including a calculation of prejudgment interest” … . Spilman v Matyas, 2023 NY Slip Op 00344, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here, on plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff proved defendant’s breach of contract but did not present evidence of the exact amount of damages he suffered. Therefore the motion should not have been granted.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE TRIPPED OVER A HOSE HE HAD PLACED ON THE STEPS, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INADEQUATE LIGHTING WAS ANOTHER PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff apparently tripped over a hose he had placed on a step. Plaintiff alleged he didn’t see the hose because the light fixture was not working. The court noted that there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident (the hose and the lighting):

There can be more than one proximate cause of an accident and [g]enerally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” … . Here, the defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether inadequate lighting in the area of the subject steps contributed to the plaintiff’s accident … .

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a premises liability case may also establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the allegedly hazardous condition for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it … . Here, the deposition testimony of the defendant’s witness that he would have known if the light fixture near the steps was not working was conclusory and speculative, and failed to address the adequacy of the lighting, even assuming that the light fixture was working … . Reyes v S. Nicolia & Sons Realty Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00340, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: There can be more than one proximate cause of a slip and fall. Here plaintiff tripped over a hose he had placed on the steps and he alleged he didn’t see the hose because of inadequate lighting. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN WHY AN AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATING THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS PROPERLY MAILED WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE INITIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRECLUDED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Supreme Court initially denied the bank’s motion for summary judgment because the proof the notice of default was properly mailed was insufficient. The bank made a motion for leave to renew and submitted an affidavit which Supreme Court deemed sufficient. The Second Department held that the bank’s failure to explain why the affidavit wasn’t produced for the bank’s initial motion precluded renewal:

In support of that branch of its motion which was for leave to renew, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Alicia Hernandez, who averred that the required notice of default was mailed by first-class mail and that the address to which the notice of default was sent was the actual notice address. The only explanation offered by the plaintiff for its failure to submit the Hernandez affidavit on its prior motion was that it reasonably believed that the evidentiary submission it had made on the prior motion was sufficient to establish its prima facie case. This contention is devoid of merit. “A party seeking summary judgment should anticipate having to lay bare its proof and should not expect that it will readily be granted a second or third chance” … . In the instant matter, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any valid reason why the Hernandez affidavit could not have been submitted on its prior motion. Since the Hernandez affidavit was submitted without demonstrating a reasonable justification for failing to submit it on the prior motion, renewal should have been denied … . JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v EY Bay Ridge, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00311, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here in this foreclosure action, the bank’s failure to explain why proof of proper mailing of the notice of default was not presented in the initial summary judgment motion required the denial of the bank’s motion for leave to renew.

 

,

DEFENDANT SUPERMARKET DID NOT OFFER PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE GRAPES ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant supermarket’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted; Defendant did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of the grapes on the floor because it presented no specific evidence of when the area had last been inspected or cleaned prior to the fall:

While defendant showed that it did not create or have actual notice of loose grapes in the produce aisle at the time of plaintiff’s accident, defendant failed to submit sufficient evidence to show, as a matter of law, that it lacked constructive notice of the condition. Specifically, defendant failed to show that its cleaning routine was followed on the day of the accident … . Its store manager testified generally that an employee was assigned to inspect and clean the produce aisle throughout the day and that he personally walked the aisles during the day, but he did not testify regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question on the day of plaintiff’s fall. A vice president testified that the cleaning protocols were verbal and were based on “common sense,” but did not offer any information as to what steps were taken during the last cleaning cycle prior to plaintiff’s accident, which also was not sufficient to establish lack of constructive notice on behalf of defendant. Accordingly, the burden did not shift to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Polanco v 756 Jomo Food Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00284, First Dept 1-24-23

Practice Point: To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case the defendant must demonstrate a lack of constructive notice by proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S RAPE CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON HIS UNCORROBORATED ADMISSION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT). ​

he Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on one count of rape in the second degree, determined there was no corroboration of defendant’s admission to having sex with the victim. Therefore, the conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

After reviewing the record, we find no evidence corroborating defendant’s admission that he and the victim engaged in sexual intercourse “a few times” in August 2017. Due to the lack of corroboration, the evidence is legally insufficient to support that conviction, and the charge under count 1 must be dismissed … . People v Bateman, 2023 NY Slip Op 00249, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: A conviction which rests solely on an uncorroborated admission is not supported by legally sufficient evidence.

 

,

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF DECEDENT’S TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY AND PETITIONER’S UNDUE INFLUENCE PRECLUDED SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE WILL SUBMITTED FOR PROBATE BY PETITIONER (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined the respondent’s (decedent’s niece’s) objections to the probate of the will submitted by petitioner (decedent’s agent) should not have been dismissed. Decedent, in a 2011 will, made respondent the sole beneficiary of his estate. Subsequently decedent executed a 2015 will making petitioner the sole beneficiary of his estate. The Third Department found summary judgment dismissing respondent’s objections was inappropriate because there was conflicting evidence of decedent’s testamentary capacity and petitioner’s undue influence:

… [T]he witnesses affirmed that beginning in late 2014, decedent’s personal hygiene declined, he acted unusual, was confused and forgetful. The medical records, spanning from the fall of 2014, including a contemporaneous record four days subsequent to the execution of the 2015 will, are replete with observations that decedent refused to care for himself resulting in numerous hospitalizations for hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia and urinary tract infections. The records contain multiple entries that decedent suffered from an altered mental state, confusion and was incoherent. This evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of fact regarding decedent’s testamentary capacity … . * * *

Much of the evidence submitted by respondent on the issue of testamentary capacity is also relevant to the issue of undue influence … . Respondent’s witnesses all affirm that while residing at the assisted living facility, decedent was lethargic, frequently complained of being ill, slept a good deal, was unresponsive and was in a weakened state. Decedent’s closest friend described him as being easily manipulated, and stated that he was especially vulnerable to petitioner, with whom he was infatuated. In presenting evidence demonstrating decedent’s physical decline, coupled with his increasing confusion and personality changes, respondent has raised an issue as to whether decedent was unduly influenced by petitioner … . Matter of Linich, 2023 NY Slip Op 00250, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: Summary judgment is rarely appropriate in a contested probate proceeding. Here conflicting evidence of decedent’s testamentary capacity and petitioner’s undue influence precluded summary judgment dismissing respondent’s objections to probate.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate the notice of foreclosure was mailed in accordance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Brown, an employee of Nationstar, the plaintiff’s loan servicer, who stated that the plaintiff had mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice in accordance with the plaintiff’s practices and procedures. However, Brown then stated that her conclusion was based on her review of Nationstar’s file, and on Nationstar’s mailing practices and procedures. Thus, Brown’s affidavit failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to who actually mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice, and the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304 … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Matsuoka, 2023 NY Slip Op 00230, Second Dept 1-18-23

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if the bank doesn’t prove who mailed the notice of foreclosure as required by RPAPL 1304 the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not be granted.

 

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