You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT AND PLAINTIFF’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bank in this foreclosure action did not present sufficient proof of defendants’ default and plaintiff’s compliance with the notice-of-default requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the defendants’ default in payment by submitting the affidavit of Brian Nwabaka, an employee of its loan servicer, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Bayview). Nwabaka averred that, based upon his review of unspecified business records, the defendants defaulted in making monthly payments in October 2008. However, Nwabaka did not aver that he had personal knowledge of the defendants’ alleged default in payment. Moreover, Nwabaka failed to identify which records he relied on to assert a default in payment, and the notice of default annexed to Nwabaka’s affidavit was insufficient to establish the alleged default in payment … .

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the affidavits of Nwabaka and Rosalind Carroll, document coordinator for Bayview, each of whom averred that the 90-day notices were sent by certified and first-class mail. However, neither Nwabaka nor Carroll attached any documents showing proof of mailing by first-class mail, nor did they aver that they had personal knowledge of the purported mailings or were familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of Bayview … . Although Nwabaka attested to his familiarity with the mailing practices and procedures of Countrywide Home Loan, the prior loan servicer, he did not aver to familiarity with the mailing practices and procedures of Bayview, which purportedly sent the 90-day notices. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Mannino, 2022 NY Slip Op 05675, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: Yet again the affidavits offered by plaintiff-bank in a foreclosure action were not sufficient to demonstrate defendants’ default or plaintiff’s compliance with the notice-of-default requirements of RPAPL 1304.

 

,

PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK THE DOOR OF DEFENDANT’S VAN AFTER DEFENDANT HAD OPENED THE DOOR; DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD OPENED THE DOOR SAFELY AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-bicyclist’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant, Stewart, opened the door of his van and plaintiff could not avoid striking the door. Stewart raised questions of fact about whether he was negligent and whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent:

The assertions made in Stewart’s affidavit, if credited, would support a finding that the plaintiff was riding his bicycle close to the parked vehicles, at a relatively high rate of speed, and possibly under the influence of alcohol, and he failed to perceive and avoid the van door, which had been open for as long as five seconds … .

… Stewart averred that, before opening the van door, he looked in his side-view mirror, where he was able to see the entire northbound lane for approximately 200 feet behind him, and he saw nothing approaching. Approximately five seconds later, the plaintiff’s bicycle collided with the van door. These averments were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Stewart failed to see what, by the reasonable use of his senses, he should have seen, and whether he opened the van door when it was not reasonably safe to do so … . Tucubal v National Express Tr. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 05731, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: In a traffic accident case, at the summary judgment stage, if defendant raises questions of fact about whether he/she was negligent and whether plaintiff was negligent, summary judgment should not be granted to plaintiff and the comparative negligence affirmative defense should not be dismissed.

 

,

IN A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TRIAL, IT IS IMPROPER TO DETERMINE ADDITIONAL LABOR COST DUE TO DELAY BY USING A DEFENDANT’S PRECONTRACT ESTIMATE OF LABOR COST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this construction contract case, determined the labor cost associated with a delay could not be determined by using the defendant’s precontract estimate of what its labor cost would be:

The trial court should not have awarded damages for additional labor costs due to defendants’ delays in the construction project. In general, it is impermissible to calculate delay damages for additional labor costs based on a comparison of the contractor’s precontract estimate of what its labor cost would be and what it claimed its labor cost actually turned out to be … . Nevertheless, in calculating the additional labor costs that plaintiff incurred from defendants’ delays, plaintiff’s expert improperly used plaintiff’s pre-bid estimate of the project’s expected labor costs, and Supreme Court erred in basing the award on this improper method of calculation. Five Star Elec. Corp. v A.J. Pegno Constr. Co., Inc./Tully Constr. Co., Inc.,2022 NY Slip Op 05659, First Dept 10-11-22

Practice Point: Here in this construction-contract trial, plaintiff’s expert should not have calculated the additional labor cost due to delay by using the defendant’s precontract labor cost estimate.

 

,

THE DETERIORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FATHER AND MOTHER WAS A SUFFICIENT CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO WARRANT AN INQUIRY RE: FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY; AFTER CONSIDERING THE MERITS, THE APPELLATE COURT AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father demonstrated a change in circumstance (deterioration of the relationship with mother, inability to communicate) sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether the joint custody arrangement should be modified, and the record supported awarding father sole custody:

… [T]he court had previously awarded joint custody to the parties on the basis that communications between them had “improved and the two were working together more than ever before, the results of which were positive for [the subject child].” However, the evidence at the hearing established that, after the initial custody award was entered, the parties reverted to ” ‘an acrimonious relationship and are not able to communicate effectively with respect to the needs and activities of their child[ ], and it is well settled that joint custody is not feasible under those circumstances’ ” … . …

… [W]e conclude that it is in the child’s best interests to award the father sole custody. Although the parties have shared alternating week custody since the entry of the prior custody order, the evidence at the hearing established that the father “provided a more stable environment for the child and was better able to nurture the child” … . The evidence further established that the mother made a concerted effort to interfere with the father’s contact with the child by, inter alia, disparaging him to educational and medical professionals, which raises a strong probability that the mother ” ‘is unfit to act as custodial parent’ ” … and warrants the grant of sole custody to the father…. . Matter of Johnson v Johnson, 2022 NY Slip Op 05651, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: A deterioration of the relationship between father and mother was a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry re: father’s petition for a modification of custody. The record was sufficient for the appellate court to determined sole custody should be awarded to father.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS BEING TREATED AT THE HOSPITAL, WAS IN CUSTODY AND HAD NOT BEEN INFORMED OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS; THE DEFENDANT CALLED A POLICE OFFICER OVER AND SAID “I’M BEAT UP;” THE OFFICER THEN ASKED “WHAT HAPPENED?”; DEFENDANT’S ANSWER WAS NOT SPONTANEOUS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined statements made by the defendant to a police officer while he was being treated at the hospital should have been suppressed. Although the initial statement “I’m beat up” was spontaneous, the statements made after the police officer asked “what happened?” were not spontaneous and were made while the defendant was in custody:

… [I]t is undisputed that defendant was in police custody at the time he made the statements and that no one read defendant his Miranda warnings prior to defendant making the statements.

The officer testified at the suppression hearing that defendant “called [the officer] over” to his bed and said “I’m beat up,” after which the officer asked defendant “what happened.” Defendant then explained the circumstances surrounding how he allegedly came into possession of a weapon he was not legally authorized to possess. We conclude that defendant’s initial statement, “I’m beat up,” was not subject to suppression because it was ” ‘spontaneous and not the result of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence’ ” … . The court, however, erred in refusing to suppress the remainder of his statements, which were made in response to the officer’s question that was intended to elicit a response, and thus those statements cannot be said to have been “genuine[ly] spontane[ous],” i.e., they were not ” ‘spontaneous in the literal sense of that word as having been made without apparent external cause’ ” … . People v Corey, 2022 NY Slip Op 05646, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: Although defendant’s initial statement to the police office “I;m beat up” was spontaneous and not subject to suppression, defendant’s answer to the officer’s question “what happened?” was not spontaneous and should have been suppressed.

 

, , ,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SNOW PLOW WAS “ENGAGED IN HIGHWAY WORK” AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD OF CARE APPLIED; THE STATE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the state’s motion for summary judgment in this snow-plow traffic-accident case should not have been granted because there were questions of fact concerning whether the higher “reckless disregard” standard of care for snow plows was applicable. Although the “reckless disregard” standard may still apply where, as here, the snow plow is raised, the snow plow must be salting the road or otherwise “working its run” at the time of the accident:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) “exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles, including [snowplows], which are ‘actually engaged in work on a highway’ . . . , and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care” … . The exemption “applies only when such work is in fact being performed at the time of the accident” … , which includes a snowplow engaged in plowing or salting a road … . Although the exemption does “not apply if the snowplow . . . [is] merely traveling from one route to another route” … , a snowplow may be “engaged in work even if the plow blade [is] up at the time of the accident and no salting [is] occurring” when the snowplow is nevertheless “working [its] ‘run’ or ‘beat’ at the time of the accident” … .

… [W]e conclude that the State failed to establish as a matter of law that the snowplow was “actually engaged in work on a highway” at the time of the accident (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b] …). Lynch-Miller v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05640, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: Here the snow plow was raised when the traffic accident occurred. There were questions of fact about whether the snow plow was salting the road or otherwise working its run when at the time. Therefore, there were questions of fact about whether the higher “reckless disregard” standard of care for vehicles engaged in highway work applied.

 

, , ,

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.

 

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