You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

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

“RPAPL 1304(1) provides that, ‘at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower . . . , including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.’ The statute further provides the required content for the notice and provides that the notice must be sent by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower” ( … see RPAPL 1304[2]). “Proper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … .  …

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it strictly complied with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. The affidavit of Daniel Delpesche, a contract management coordinator for the plaintiff’s attorney-in-fact, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC …, did not make the requisite showing that Delpesche was familiar with Ocwen’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” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Martin, 2022 NY Slip Op 06471, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: If the affidavit submitted by the bank in a foreclosure action to prove the notice of default was mailed in accordance with RPAPL 1304 does not state that affiant is familiar with the relevant entity’s mailing procedures the bank’s motion for summary judgment must be denied.​

 

,

FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s failure to submit the business records necessary to establish the defendants’ default in this foreclosure action precluded summary judgment in favor of the bank:

In support of the motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from Helen Fraser, a vice president of document control of CitiMorgage, Inc. (hereinafter CitiMortgage), the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Fraser stated that she was familiar with the records and record-keeping practices of both CitiMortgage and the plaintiff. Fraser stated that the defendants “have defaulted under the terms and conditions of the above stated Note by failing to make the July 12, 2016 payment and all successive payments thereafter.” She did not attach any business records to her affidavit. * * *

… [I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Here, Fraser’s assertion in her affidavit regarding the defendants’ default, without attaching the business records upon which she relied in making that assertion, constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Citibank, N.A. v Potente, 2022 NY Slip Op 06464, Second Dept 11-16-22

Similar issues and result in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Pane, 2022 NY Slip Op 06516, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: Yet again: An affidavit which is not supported by the attachment of the business records referenced in the affidavit is considered hearsay which cannot be the basis for summary judgment in favor of the bank in a foreclosure action.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENCE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant construction company (Pinto) did not demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the condition alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall (a construction sign on the sidewalk) and that it did not create the condition:

Pinto failed to meet its initial burden on its cross motion with respect to constructive notice because its submissions “failed to establish as a matter of law that the [dangerous] condition [was] not visible and apparent or that [it] had not existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit [Pinto] or [its] employees to discover and remedy [it]” … . Testimony from Pinto’s superintendent that Pinto had a general policy of taking down and storing its construction signs at the end of each workday was insufficient to establish that Pinto lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition because Pinto failed to establish that it had complied with that general policy prior to the occurrence of the incident in question … .

Pinto also failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not create the allegedly dangerous condition because its own submissions raise triable issues of fact with respect to that issue … . There is no dispute that Pinto’s submissions established that the sign plaintiff tripped over belonged to Pinto. Although the deposition testimony from Pinto’s superintendent established that, at the time of the accident, Pinto had not been present at the work site for about a week, he did not know how the sign ended up on the ground or how long it had been there, and he only speculated that the sign may have been used by another contractor who failed to properly put it away.  Brioso v City of Buffalo, 2022 NY Slip Op 06380, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: Defendant construction company did not demonstrate it did not have constructive knowledge of and was not responsible for the presence of the construction sign on the sidewalk over which plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell.

 

,

A WITNESS WHO WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED THE COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE PROSECUTION HAD OFFERED TO GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE WITNESS’S BOYFRIEND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in this sexual abuse prosecution, determined a witness who would have testified about the complainant’s offer to give false testimony about the witness’s boyfriend should have been allowed to testify:

County Court erred in precluding him from calling a witness who would testify that the complainant offered to make a false allegation of abuse against the witness’s boyfriend. “Questioning concerning prior false allegations of rape or sexual abuse is not always precluded . . . , and the determination whether to allow such questioning rests within the discretion of the trial court” … . Evidence of a complainant’s prior false allegations of rape or sexual abuse is admissible to impeach the complainant’s credibility where a “defendant establishe[s] that the [prior] allegation may have been false[, and] . . . that the particulars of the complaints, the circumstances or manner of the alleged assaults, or the currency of the complaints were such as to suggest a pattern casting substantial doubt on the validity of the charges made by the complainant” … . Here, based on the proffer made at trial, defendant’s proposed witness would have testified that the complainant offered to knowingly make a false allegation against the witness’s boyfriend and that this conduct took place around the same time as the first incident alleged against defendant and just months before the second such incident. Further, per defense counsel’s proffer, the nature and circumstances of the allegations against defendant and the offered allegation against the witness’s boyfriend were sufficiently similar to “suggest a pattern casting substantial doubt on the validity of the charges” … . People v Andrews, 2022 NY Slip Op 06366, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: A witness who would have testified the complainant in this sexual abuse prosecution offered to give false testimony against her boyfriend should have been allowed to testify. Evidence of a complainant’s prior false allegations of sexual abuse can be admissible to impeach the complainant under certain circumstances (present here).

 

, , ,

​ IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY NOT CONSIDERED) AND THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT NOTIFIED A TENANT OF THE FORECLOSURE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1303 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank (Merrill Lynch) in this foreclosure action failed to prove defendant’s default and failed to notify a tenant on the property of the foreclosure. The bank’s attempt to prove the default in reply papers was rejected:

Merrill Lynch failed to submit admissible evidence establishing the defendant’s default. In support of its motion, Merrill Lynch submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of Theresia Ang, the vice president of its loan servicer and attorney-in-fact. However, Ang failed to attach the business records on which she relied, and thus, her averment to the defendant’s default was hearsay lacking in probative value … . Although Merrill Lynch attempted to submit evidence of the defendant’s default in reply, a moving party “cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply” … .

… RPAPL 1303 requires, inter alia, the party foreclosing a mortgage on residential property to provide the notice prescribed by the statute to any tenant of the property by certified mail, if the identity of the tenant is known to the foreclosing party (see id. § 1303[1][b]; [4]). Proper service of an RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action, and the “‘foreclosing party has the burden of showing compliance therewith'” … .

Here, Merrill Lynch failed to submit any evidence that it served any tenant of the subject property with the notices required by RPAPL 1303 by certified mail, or that it was not aware of any tenant’s identity. In contrast, the defendant’s affidavit and the affidavit of Richard Nicholson, submitted in opposition to Merrill Lynch’s motion, established that Richard Nicholson resided at the subject property, that he paid rent, and that the mortgage loan servicer was aware that he resided at the subject property. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp. v Nicholson, 2022 NY Slip Op 06239, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action failed to submit sufficient evidence of defendant’s default and was not allowed to cure the defect in reply papers.

Practice Point: The bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate it notified a tenant of the foreclosure as required by RPAPL 1303.

 

,

SIX TO TWELVE INCHES OF SNOW FELL OVERNIGHT AND PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AT AROUND 6:00 AM; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted on the ground that the storm-in-progress defense applied:

On March 15, 2017, at approximately 5:55 a.m., the plaintiff … allegedly was injured when he slipped and fell on snow and ice on premises owned by the defendants. …

“Under the storm-in-progress rule, a property owner, tenant in possession, or, where relevant, a snow removal contractor will not be held responsible for accidents caused by snow or ice that accumulates during a storm until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow . . . an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm” … . However, once a landowner or a tenant in possession elects to engage in snow removal during a storm in progress, “it is required to act with reasonable care so as to avoid creating a hazardous condition or exacerbating a natural hazard created by the storm” … . “The mere failure of a defendant to remove all of the snow and ice, without more, does not establish that the defendant increased the risk of harm” … .

Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted … [plaintiff’s] deposition testimony, which established … that snow began to fall the day before the incident and continued to fall into the overnight hours, producing 6 to 12 inches of snow, and that the defendants did not have a reasonably sufficient time to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm … . Henenlotter v Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 23, 2022 NY Slip Op 06116, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Here six to twelve inches of snow fell overnight and plaintiff slipped and fell around 6 in the morning. The appellate court determined the storm-in-progress defense applied and defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

,

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.

 

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