You are here: / Evidence
,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE ATTACKERS’ INTENT TO ROB THE VICTIM; DEFENDANT’S ROBBERY CONVICTIONS UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE-LIABILITY THEORY REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s robbery convictions, determined the evidence defendant shared the attackers’ intent to rob the victim was legally insufficient. Defendant had set up a drug purchase from the victim. When the victim arrived, he was attacked and robbed by four masked men. Although the victim testified defendant was one of the masked men, there was strong evidence to the contrary:

The People … did not have any direct evidence demonstrating that defendant knew of or shared an intent to forcibly steal property from the victim … . Indeed, there was no evidence that defendant had prior knowledge of a plan to rob the victim … . People v Smith, 2022 NY Slip Op 03547, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Although the defendant sent the victim to the address where the victim was to sell marijuana to a buyer, there was no evidence defendant was aware the buyer intended to attack and rob the victim. Therefore, there was no evidence defendant shared the robbers’ intent and his robbery convictions under an accomplice-liability theory were reversed.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SEND THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the plaintiff did not sent the RPAPL 1304 notice in a separate envelope. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted for the same reason:

… [T]he copies of the 90-day notice submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion included additional notices not contemplated by RPAPL 1304(2). The plaintiff acknowledged that the envelopes it sent to the defendants, which contained the requisite RPAPL 1304 notice, also included a separate notice pertaining to the rights of a debtor in military service and a debtor in bankruptcy, among others. This Court recently determined, in Bank of America, N.A. v Kessler (202 AD3d 10), that RPAPL 1304(2) requires that the requisite notice under its provision be mailed in an envelope separate from any other notice. Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the RPAPL 1304 notice was “served in an envelope that was separate from any other mailing or notice” … . …

… [A]s the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them “by showing that the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304 when it sent additional material in the same envelopes as the requisite notice under RPAPL 1304,” and as the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them … . Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v Bedell, 2022 NY Slip Op 03413, Second Dept 5-25-22

Practice Point: If the bank doesn’t send the foreclosure notice required by RPAPL 1304 in a separate envelope, the defendants in the foreclosure action are entitled to summary judgment.

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIM TO FALL NEAR A SINK IN DEFENDANTS’ BATHROOM, BUT HIS PANTS WERE WET AFTER THE FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not demonstrate plaintiff could not identify the cause of his slip and fall. Plaintiff fell near a sink in defendants’ bathroom. Although he did not see the condition which caused him to fall, his pants were wet after the fall:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what had caused him to fall. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not see the condition that caused him to fall prior to the accident. However, he testified that, after he fell, his pants became wet. “Contrary to the defendants’ contention, this testimony does not establish that the cause of the plaintiff’s fall cannot be identified without engaging in speculation” … . Redendo v Central Ave. Chrysler Jeep, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03411, Second Dept 5-25-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff did not see the condition which caused him to fall near a sink in defendants’ bathroom, but his pants were wet after the fall. Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the ground the plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall.

​

,

THE STOP OF THE TAXI IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO ALL OFFENSES BASED UPON A PROMISE OF CONCURRENT SENTENCES, ALL CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions by guilty pleas, determined the police officer who stopped the taxi in which defendant was a passenger did not have probable cause to believe defendant had committed a crime. Because defendant pled guilty to several offenses based upon a promise of concurrent sentences, all convictions were reversed:

Upon our evaluation of the totality of the circumstances in this case, we conclude that, at the time the police officer stopped the taxi in which the defendant was a passenger, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant had committed a crime. The stop was based merely on the report of an identified citizen, made 40 minutes after the fight had occurred, that the neighbor with whom she was talking to on the phone was presently observing the defendant getting into a black taxi on the block where the fight occurred. There was no evidence that the informant or the neighbor saw the fight, and the neighbor, who testified at the hearing, did not state that she knew that the defendant was involved in the fight. Indeed, the police officer who stopped the taxi admitted that, when he made the stop, he did not know whether the defendant was a victim, a perpetrator, or involved “in anything.” Under these circumstances, the gun recovered by that officer upon the vehicle stop should have been suppressed … . …

The defendant correctly contends that the judgments relating to the drug cases also must be reversed inasmuch as his pleas of guilty in those cases were premised on the promise of sentences that would run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the weapon possession charge … . People v Gomez, 2022 NY Slip Op 03399, Second Dept 5-25-22

Practice Point: One of the charges to which defendant pled guilty was overturned because the police did not have probable cause to make a vehicle stop. The guilty pleas to all the charges were reversed because of the promise the sentences would run concurrently with the sentence for the overturned conviction.

 

,

THE BURGLARY COUNT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT ALLEGED DEFENDANT WAS ARMED WITH A “KNIFE” WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A “DEADLY WEAPON;” THE ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE COUNT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED; THE SANDOVAL RULING WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department dismissed a jurisdictionally defective count of the indictment, held the People’s attempt to amend that count was not authorized, held that certain Sandoval evidence should not have been admitted, but deemed the Sandoval error harmless and upheld defendant’s convictions on the other counts:

… [C]ount 1 of the indictment alleged that “in the course of effecting entry into said dwelling,” the defendant “was armed with a dangerous weapon, to wit: a knife.” Inasmuch as the offense of burglary in the first degree requires that the defendant be armed with a “deadly weapon,” a term which is specifically defined in Penal Law § 10.00(12) and which definition includes only certain specified knives, count 1 of the indictment was jurisdictionally defective because it failed to effectively charge the defendant with the commission of a crime (see id. §§ 10.00, 140.30[1]).

… CPL 200.70(2)(a) prohibits any amendment of an indictment when the amendment is needed to cure “[a] failure thereof to charge or state an offense” … .

… Although “questioning concerning other crimes is not automatically precluded simply because the crimes to be inquired about are similar to the crimes charged” … , “‘cross-examination with respect to crimes or conduct similar to that of which the defendant is presently charged may be highly prejudicial, in view of the risk, despite the most clear and forceful limiting instructions to the contrary, that the evidence will be taken as some proof of the commission of the crime charged rather than be reserved solely to the issue of credibility'” … . People v Bloome, 2022 NY Slip Op 03398, Second Dept 5-25-22

Practice Point: Only certain knives meet the definition of “deadly weapon” as used in the burglary first statute. Therefore the count which alleged defendant was armed with a knife did not allege burglary first and was therefore jurisdictionally defective. A count which does not state an offense cannot be amended pursuant to CPL 200.70. The Sandoval ruling, which allowed defendant to be cross-examined about crimes similar to those with which he was charged, was (harmless) error.

 

,

EXCLUDING EVIDENCE WHICH CONTRADICTED AN IMPORTANT PROSECUTION-WITNESS’S ACCOUNT OF HIS ACTIONS RIGHT UP UNTIL THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING, AND THREE 911 CALLS WHICH QUALIFIED AS PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSIONS, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the Appellate Division in this murder case, determined evidentiary rulings excluding evidence which impeached an important witness and 911 calls admissible as present sense impressions deprived defendant of his right to present a defense. R.M. was a crucial prosecution witness. R.M. claimed to have been with his girlfriend, R.J. right up until the time of the shooting. But R.J. would have testified she was not with R.M. that day:

R.J.’s proffered testimony was probative of R.M.’s ability to observe and recall details of the shooting. At trial, R.M. testified that he was with R.J. until “seconds” before he witnessed the shooting, and that he was at the scene to walk R.J. home. Upon the People’s questioning, R.M. explained in detail his relationship with R.J., resulting in many pages of testimony as to where he met up with her that evening, the amount of time they spent together, and when they parted ways. This testimony, introduced and relied upon by the People, made R.J. an integral part of R.M.’s account of why he was in a position to witness the shooting, and placed her with him mere seconds before it occurred. Since the People’s own theory of the case placed R.J. on the scene the instant before the shooting, her testimony cannot be characterized as collateral. …

The court also erred in excluding the three 911 calls. The calls were admissible as present sense impressions. The present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule applies to statements that are “(1) made by a person perceiving the event as it is unfolding or immediately afterward” and “(2) corroborated by independent evidence establishing the reliability of the contents of the statement” … . “[D]escriptions of events made by a person who is perceiving the event as it is unfolding” are “deemed reliable . . . because the contemporaneity of the communication minimizes the opportunity for calculated misstatement as well as the risk of inaccuracy from faulty memory” … . People v Deverow, 2022 NY Slip Op 03362, CtApp 5-24-22

Practice Point: Here an important prosecution witness claimed he was with his girlfriend right up until seconds before the shooting he allegedly witnessed. The girlfriend’s testimony that she was not with the witness that day should not have been excluded as collateral. In addition, three 911 calls which qualified as present sense impressions should not have been excluded. The Court of Appeals held these evidentiary errors deprived defendant of his right to put on a defense.

 

,

PETITIONER-INMATE WAS DENIED DUE PROCEES WHEN HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VIEW A VIDEO OF THE INCIDENT WHICH RESULTED IN THE MISBEHAVIOR CHARGE; NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the petitioner-inmate’s misbehavior determination, held that the petitioner was denied due process by not being given the opportunity to see the video of the incident:

“[A]n [incarcerated individual] ‘should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his [or her] defense when permitting him [or her] to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals'” … . The videotaped incident occurred while petitioner was incarcerated at a different facility. The Hearing Officer informed petitioner that, due to the format of the video, it could not be played in the hearing room and could only be played on equipment located in a secure area of the facility from which petitioner was barred entry. The Hearing Officer stated that he had viewed the video in the secure area, and he described what he believed the video depicted. Petitioner objected, arguing that he was being prevented from providing exculpatory testimony as to what occurred in the video. The Hearing Officer denied the objection, stating that ‘the video speaks for itself,’ and the record reflects that he relied, in part, on the video in reaching the determination of guilt. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the explanation that the only video equipment capable of playing the video was in a secure area, without any apparent attempt to either move the equipment or find other equipment capable of playing the video for petitioner, did not articulate institutional safety or correctional goals sufficient to justify denying petitioner’s right to reply to evidence against him … .. Similarly, the fact that petitioner may have seen the video at his former facility during a prior hearing on these charges before a different Hearing Officer, a hearing that resulted in a determination that was administratively reversed, does not excuse the denial of petitioner’s right to view the video during the new hearing and offer exculpatory testimony as to its contents … .

As to the remedy, we conclude that a new hearing, not expungement, is appropriate. Matter of Proctor v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 03298, Third Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Prison inmates charged with misbehavior have due process rights. Here the petitioner-inmate was entitled to see the video which allegedly depicted the charged misbehavior. The determination was annulled and a new hearing ordered.

 

,

HERE SCREENSHOTS OF TEXT MESSAGES WHICH HAD BEEN DELETED FROM THE VICTIM’S PHONE WERE SUFFICIENTLY AUTHENTICATED TO BE ADMISSIBLE, EVEN IF THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIED; THE MESSAGES OF A SEXUAL NATURE ALLEGEDLY WERE SENT BY THE DEFENDANT, A VOLLEY BALL COACH, TO THE VICTIM, A 15-YEAR-OLD PLAYER ON THE TEAM (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting in evidence screen shots of text messages of a sexual nature allegedly sent by the defendant, a high-school volley ball coach, to the 15-year-old victim, a player on the team. The victim had deleted the messages, but her boyfriend had taken screenshots of some of the messages and those screenshots were allowed in evidence. On appeal the Second Department reversed the conviction on the ground that the screenshots had not been properly authenticated:

“[T]echnologically generated documentation [is] ordinarily admissible under standard evidentiary rubrics” and “this type of ruling may be disturbed by this Court only when no legal foundation has been proffered or when an abuse of discretion as a matter of law is demonstrated” … . This Court recently held that for digital photographs, like traditional photographs, “the proper foundation [may] be established through testimony that the photograph accurately represents the subject matter depicted” … . We reiterated that “[r]arely is it required that the identity and accuracy of a photograph be proved by the photographer” … . which would be the boyfriend here. Rather, “any person having the requisite knowledge of the facts may verify” the photograph “or an expert may testify that the photograph has not been altered” … .

Here, the testimony of the victim—a participant in and witness to the conversations with defendant—sufficed to authenticate the screenshots. She testified that all of the screenshots offered by the People fairly and accurately represented text messages sent to and from defendant’s phone. The boyfriend also identified the screenshots as the same ones he took from the victim’s phone on November 7. Telephone records of the call detail information for defendant’s subscriber number corroborated that defendant sent the victim numerous text messages during the relevant time period. Moreover, even if we were to credit defendant’s argument that the best evidence rule applies in this context, the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the screenshots. People v Rodriguez, 2022 NY Slip Op 03307, CtApp 5-19-22

Practice Point: Text messages of a sexual nature were allegedly sent by the defendant, a volley ball coach, to a 15-year-old player on the team. The original messages were deleted, but the victim’s boyfriend had taken screenshots of some of the messages. The screenshots were deemed authenticated and admitted by the trial court. The Second Department reversed, applying the best evidence rule. The Court of Appeals reversed the Second Department, finding that, even if the best evidence rule applied, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the screenshots had been sufficiently authenticated.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined proof of mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice and failure to comply with the content-requirements for the RPAPL 1304 notice in this foreclosure action warranted denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment:

The respondent failed to establish the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The respondent submitted an affidavit of Alfreda Johnson, a “Foreclosure Specialist” of Fay Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Fay), the plaintiff’s servicer. Johnson did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing … . Furthermore, while Johnson averred that she was familiar with Fay’s mailing practices and procedures, the record indicates that the notices were not mailed by Fay. The record indicates that the notices were mailed by an entity known as “Seterus” … . Johnson does not address this fact at all, let alone demonstrate that she was familiar with Seterus’s mailing practices and procedures. Thus, the respondent failed to establish that the 90-day notices were properly mailed in strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … .

Moreover, the content of the 90-day notices did not strictly comply with RPAPL 1304 … . Here, the 90-day notices omitted information that was required by RPAPL 1304 … . Prof-2014-S2 Legal Tit. Trust II v DeMarco, 2022 NY Slip Op 03263, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Here, in this foreclosure action, not only was proof of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice insufficient, but the notice did not include all the required information.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A FORECLOSURE ACTION USUALLY ACCELERATES THE DEBT AND STARTS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CLOCK, HERE THE DEFENDANTS-BORROWERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION SOUGHT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT DUE (THE 2009 COMPLAINT WAS NOT SUBMITTED); THEREFORE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTANT ACTION IS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants-borrowers in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate the debt was accelerated by the 2009 foreclosure action. Therefore the complaint in the instant action should not have been dismissed as untimely:

… [T]he defendants failed to demonstrate that the debt was validly accelerated by the commencement of the 2009 action. In support of their respective motions, the defendants submitted only the summons with notice from the 2009 action, which did contain a statement that BAC sought “payment of the full balance due,” and a printout of the WebCivil Supreme-Case Detail related to the instant action … . Since the defendants did not submit the complaint or the notice of pendency filed in the 2009 action, it cannot be determined whether those documents elected to accelerate the mortgage loan … . GSR Mtge. Loan Trust v Epstein, 2022 NY Slip Op 03232, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: To demonstrate that a prior foreclosure action accelerated the debt and thereby started the statute of limitations clock, proof that the prior action called for payment of the entire debt must be submitted. Here the defendants-borrowers did not submit the 2009 foreclosure complaint and therefore did not prove the debt was accelerated by the 2009 foreclosure action.

 

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