You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PAPERS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3408 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the provision in the mortgage agreement requiring certain advisements in the notice of default. The affidavit purporting to demonstrate compliance did not have the notice of default attached. In addition, Supreme Court should not have denied defendant’s cross motion for a hearing on whether plaintiff bank met its obligation to negotiate in good faith (CPLR 3408):

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with the provision in the mortgage agreement requiring the plaintiff to send to the defendant a notice of default containing certain advisements and setting forth a 30-day cure period. The affidavit of its employee, Lindsay Hodges, was insufficient for this purpose inasmuch as Hodges failed to attach business records upon which she relied—specifically, the notice of default itself—in averring that notice was provided in compliance with the mortgage agreement. … Hodges’s averment was therefore hearsay lacking in probative value … . …

Supreme Court improperly denied the defendant’s cross motion for a hearing to determine whether the plaintiff met its obligation to negotiate in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f). “The purpose of the good-faith requirement in CPLR 3408 is to ensure that both the plaintiff and the defendant are prepared to participate in a meaningful effort at the settlement conference to reach a resolution” … . To conclude that a party failed to negotiate in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f), a court must determine that “the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the party’s conduct did not constitute a meaningful effort at reaching a resolution” … .

… [T]he defendant’s submissions in support of her cross motion raised a factual issue as to whether the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith and deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to resolve the action through loan modification or other potential workout options … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Rose, 2022 NY Slip Op 05516, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Here the mortgage agreement required that the notice of default include certain information. The affidavit submitted to prove the contents of the notice of default was hearsay because the notice was not attached.

 

,

ALTHOUGH TRADER JOE’S APPARENTLY DID NOT OWN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT OCCUPY, CONTROL OR MAKE SPECIAL USE OF THE PARKING LOT; TRADER JOE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant Trader Joe’s motion for summary judgment in this parking lot slip and fall case should not have been granted. Although the parking lot was apparently owned by the town, Trader Joe’s did not demonstrate it did not occupy, control, or make special use of the parking lot:

“‘Liability for a dangerous condition on property is generally predicated upon ownership, occupancy, control, or special use of the property'” … . “‘In the absence of ownership, occupancy, control, or special use, a party generally cannot be held liable for injuries caused by the dangerous or defective condition of the property'” … . * * *

Trader Joe’s failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that it did not occupy, control, or make special use of the parking lot where the accident occurred, and that it cannot be held liable for Toner’s alleged injuries … . Toner v Trader Joe’s E., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05555, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Even though the defendant did not own the parking lot where plaintiff slipped and fell, to be entitled the summary judgment the defendant must show it did not occupy, control or make special use of the parking lot. The failure to do so here required denial of defendant’s motion.

 

, ,

A DECISION TO RETURN TO THE REGULAR ACCESS SCHEDULE OF PARENTING TIME AFTER A PERIOD OF SUPERVISED PARENTAL VISITS MUST BE BASED UPON ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; WHERE FACTS REMAIN IN DISPUTE, A HEARING IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a hearing should have been held before granting defendant’s motion to return to the regular access schedule of parenting time because some facts were still in dispute:

… Supreme Court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing prior to directing that the regular access schedule as set forth in the parties’ stipulation of settlement be implemented immediately. Although the court based its determination on information contained in the parties’ applications, reports from Kids in Common, and statements from counsel for the parties and the attorney for the child during multiple conferences, Kids in Common had not yet advised that the child was ready for a fully normalized access schedule, and a decision regarding child custody and/or parental access should be based on admissible evidence … . Where, as here, facts material to a determination of what parental access is in the best interests of the child remain in dispute, a hearing is required … . Stolzenberg v Stolzenberg, 2022 NY Slip Op 05554, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: At the time defendant made a motion to return to the regular access schedule of parenting time after a period of supervised visitation facts remained in dispute. The motion should not have been granted without first holding a hearing where only admissible evidence is considered.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY PULLED OUT OF A DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT KEPT A PROPER LOOKOUT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact in this traffic accident case, even though defendant driver had the right-of-way and plaintiff pulled out of a driveway in front of defendant. The facts are not described:

The defendants’ evidence established, prima facie, that the defendant driver had the right-of-way, that the plaintiff was at fault in the happening of the accident, and that the defendant driver was not at fault in the happening of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143 …). In opposition, the plaintiff submitted, among other things, his own affidavit, in which he gave a completely different version of the events preceding the accident. The plaintiff’s evidence raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver, who was obligated to keep a proper lookout, see what was there to be seen through the reasonable use of his senses, and avoid colliding with other vehicles … , was indeed at fault in the happening of the accident. Hassan v Brauns Express, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05520, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Defendant driver had the right-of-way and plaintiff apparently pulled out of a driveway in front of defendant. However, plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether defendant kept a proper lookout which was sufficient to avoid summary judgment.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THE STORE DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA HAD BEEN INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant grocery store in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the condition which caused the fall:

… [T]the court erred in granting the motion with respect to the claim that defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition … . Defendant failed to meet its initial burden on that issue inasmuch as its own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether the wet floor “was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient length of time prior to plaintiff’s fall to permit [defendant’s employees] to discover and remedy it” … . Although defendant submitted the affidavit and deposition testimony of its former store manager, in which he indicated that store employees routinely frequented the area and would have looked for dangerous conditions, defendant’s evidence failed to establish that the employees actually performed any security sweeps on the day of the incident, or that anyone actually inspected the area in question before plaintiff’s fall. Consequently, defendant failed to eliminate all issues of fact with respect to constructive notice … . Andrews v JCP Groceries, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05422, Fourth Dept 9-30-22

Practice Point: In a slip and fall case, to demonstrate the defendant did not have constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, the defendant must present evidence the area was inspected close in time to the fall. Without such evidence, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be denied.

 

, , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL MISTAKENLY FAILED TO NOTIFY THE PROSECUTION OF AN ALIBI WITNESS; DEFENSE COUNSEL ADMITTED HE HAD NO EXCUSE FOR HIS MISTAKE; BECAUSE THE FAILURE WAS NOT DELIBERATE AND WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE, THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF ALIBI SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT),

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on the two relevant counts, determined defense counsel’s failure to timely notify the prosecution of an alibi witness was not deliberate and the defense motion to serve a late notice of alibi should have been granted:

… [O]n the day prior to jury selection, defendant filed a motion to permit the late service of a notice of alibi with respect to the first two counts of the indictment. In an affirmation in support of the motion, defense counsel explained that, just days after defendant’s arraignment on the indictment, defendant informed him of the existence of a potential alibi witness, and defense counsel’s investigator confirmed the alibi with the witness a week later. Defense counsel averred that, despite his awareness of that witness, he failed to notify the court and the prosecutor of the existence of the witness simply through his own negligence. Defense counsel had no objection to a brief adjournment for the People to investigate the alibi. Defense counsel’s averments and statements to the court established that his failure to comply with the time limits of CPL 250.20 was not willful or motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage but simply a mistake … and, under these circumstances, defendant’s constitutional right to offer the testimony of the alibi witness outweighed any prejudice to the People or their interest in having the trial begin as scheduled … . The court therefore abused its discretion in precluding the testimony of the alibi witness (see Green, 70 AD3d at 45-46). The evidence against defendant was not overwhelming, and thus the harmless error doctrine is inapplicable here … . People v Thomas, 2022 NY Slip Op 05430, Fourth Dept 9-30-22

Practice Point: The failure to notify the prosecution of an alibi witness was an inadvertent mistake. The defense motion for permission to serve a late notice of alibi should have been granted. The denial of the motion denied defendant a fair trial.

 

, ,

TINTED WINDOWS CONSTITUTED A VALID REASON FOR THE VEHICLE STOP; THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPOUNDMENT OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AND THE INVENTORY SEARCH WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE TINTED-WINDOWS STOP, THE IMPOUNDMENT AND THE INVENTORY SEARCH WERE INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined (1) the vehicle stop based upon tinted windows was valid, (2) the impoundment of defendant’s vehicle (defendant did not have a license); was proper, and (3) the inventory search of the vehicle was valid: Marijuana and and a firearm were found in the search of the vehicle:

… [W]indow tint violations are a recognized basis for stopping a motor vehicle. The legal test, according to the Court of Appeals, is whether the police officer reasonably believes the windows to be over-tinted in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(12-a)(b) … . Officer Sepulveda’s testimony that he could not see into the defendant’s vehicle meets that test. …

The defendant’s contention on appeal that the impoundment and initial inventory search of the Nissan was unlawful was not raised before the Supreme Court and is therefore unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] …), and we decline to reach that contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction…. .

From the dissent:

I respectfully dissent in part and vote to reverse the judgment insofar as reviewed for several reasons. First, the People failed to establish a sufficient basis for the police stop of the defendant’s vehicle. Second, the People failed to establish the legality of the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle. Third, the People failed to establish the validity of the purported inventory search of the defendant’s vehicle. People v Biggs, 2022 NY Slip Op 05328, Second Dept 9-28-22

Practice Point: Tinted windows is a valid reason for a vehicle stop. The extensive dissent in this case called into question the validity of the tinted-windows stop, the impoundment of the vehicle and the inventory search of the vehicle.

 

, ,

THE INSURED MISREPRESENTED HER HOME ADDRESS AND THE INSURERS DISCLAIMED COVERAGE; THE CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE INSURERS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (UNDERWRITING MANUALS, RULES, BULLETINS) AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MISREPRESENTATION WAS MATERIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurers which disclaimed coverage did not demonstrate the insured’s misrepresentation of her address was material. The insurers’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he insurers filed this action for a declaration of no-coverage and an injunction barring defendant medical providers from seeking any no-fault reimbursement under the claimant’s automobile insurance policy. The insurers alleged that the claimant had intentionally and materially misrepresented her home address in procuring the policy, as the proper policy address was not the Wappingers Falls address she had stated, but rather, an address in the Bronx.

The insurers submitted undisputed evidence that the claimant misrepresented her address based on her testimony at the Examination Under Oath (EUO). However, the insurers failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the alleged misrepresentation as to the correct address was a material misrepresentation. The affidavit of the insurers’ underwriter is conclusory and not supported by relevant documentary evidence such as underwriting manuals, rules, or bulletins …  Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Valera, 2022 NY Slip Op 05277, First Dept 9-27-22

Practice Point: To disclaim insurance coverage based upon a misrepresentation by the insured, the insurer must demonstrate the misrepresentation was material. Here, at the summary judgment stage, the insurers’ conclusory affidavit, which was not supported by underwriting manuals, roles or bulletins, was not enough.

 

,

THE VIDEO DID NOT SUPPORT THE CREATING-A-DISTURBANCE CHARGE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the misbehavior determination, found that the video evidence did support the charge:

… [S]ubstantial evidence was lacking to support the charge of creating a disturbance … . As relevant here, an incarcerated individual “shall not engage in conduct which disturbs the order of any part of the facility . . .[, which] includes . . . loud talking in a mess hall, program area or corridor” (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [iv]). The misbehavior report stated that petitioner was talking to another incarcerated individual and that, after refusing to produce his identification card to a correction officer, “the other 38 [incarcerated individuals] began to take notice.” However, video of the incident does not reflect that petitioner’s conduct disturbed the order of the commissary bullpen area(see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [iv]), nor did it demonstrate that he was engaging in loud talk or other misconduct indicative of a disruption … . Matter of Ramos v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 05255, Third Dept 9-22-22

Practice Point: Here the video of the incident did not support the charge that petitioner created a disturbance. The misbehavior determination was annulled.

 

, ,

AN AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS ATTACHED DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 and therefore should not have been awarded summary judgment:

… [A]lthough the plaintiff submitted a copy of the 90-day notice purportedly sent to the defendant by Green Tree [the loan servicer], it failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the notice was actually mailed, either through an affidavit of mailing, other proof of mailing by the post office, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure. Instead, the plaintiff merely submitted an affidavit from a representative of its attorney-in-fact, averring that the 90-day notice was sent by Green Tree in accordance with RPAPL 1304. That conclusory, unsubstantiated averment, standing alone, was insufficient to establish that the notice was actually mailed to the defendant by first-class and certified mail … . Moreover, the affiant based his assertions upon his review of unspecified business records without attaching any such business records to his affidavit … . “It is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Fernando, 2022 NY Slip Op 05231, Second Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, at the summary judgment  stage, proof the notice of foreclosure was mailed in accordance with RPAPL 1304 cannot be demonstrated by an affidavit which refers to documents that are not attached.

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