You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT IN AN ENVELOPE WHICH INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES, A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank violated the “separate envelope” rule (RPAPL 1304) in that the foreclosure notice sent to defendant included notices in addition to the foreclosure notice:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the “separate envelope” requirement of RPAPL 1304(2). “[I]nclusion of any material in the separate envelope sent to the borrower under RPAPL 1304 that is not expressly delineated in these provisions constitutes a violation of the separate envelope requirement of RPAPL 1304(2)” … . The envelope containing the requisite notice under RPAPL 1304 included notices pertaining to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 USC et seq.) and bankruptcy, and, therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . US Bank N.A. v Lanzetta, 2022 NY Slip Op 04322, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here the notice of foreclosure was sent to defendant in an envelope with other notices, a violation of RPAPL 1304, which must be strictly complied with.

 

,

THE PROOF OF THE AMOUNT DUE PURSUANT TO THE MORTGAGE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report in this foreclosure action was based on hearsay and should not have been confirmed:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . “The referee’s findings and recommendations are advisory only and have no binding effect on the court, which remains the ultimate arbiter of the dispute” … .

Here, as the defendant correctly contends, the affidavit of the plaintiff’s servicing agent, submitted for the purpose of establishing the amount due and owing under the subject mortgage loan, “constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value because the affiant did not produce any of the business records [s]he purportedly relied upon in making [her] calculations” … . Thus, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due upon the mortgage were not substantially supported by the record … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Barton, 2022 NY Slip Op 04319, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: In foreclosure actions where the proof is presented by affidavit, if the affidavit relies on business records which are not attached, the affidavit is inadmissible hearsay.

 

, , ,

THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE JUDGE PRECLUDED CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT ABOUT WHETHER THE OTHER DOCTORS WHO CONSULTED ON PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT DEPARTED FROM ACCEPTED PRACTICE BY FAILING TO DO FURTHER DIAGNOSTIC TESTING; IF SO, FAULT WOULD BE SHARED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1601 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s (Sourour’s) motion to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The evidence supported the jury’s finding that the failure to do diagnostic testing decreased the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome. During the trial Sourour sought to but was precluded from cross-examining plaintiff’s expert about whether other doctors who consulted on the case also departed from accepted practice by not performing the additional diagnostic testing. That was deemed reversible error:

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise” … . “In considering such a motion, [t]he Trial Judge must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected . . . and must look to his [or her] own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision” … . …

If, as Sourour proposes, a jury were to find that these doctors departed from accepted medical practice and that their departures were a substantial factor in depriving the decedent of a chance for an improved outcome, they could be found at fault together with Sourour … . As a result, any evidence as to the culpability of these doctors was relevant under CPLR 1601(1) … . The court’s error in precluding testimony on this issue deprived Sourour of “substantial justice” … . Schuster v Sourour, 2022 NY Slip Op 04317, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant doctor’s failure to do further diagnostic testing for cancer was deemed to have decreased the chance of a better outcome. Therefore the plaintiff’s verdict was supported by the evidence and properly survived a motion set aside as a matter of law. However, the judge erroneously precluded cross-examination of plaintiff’s expert about whether the other doctors who consulted on plaintiff’s treatment departed from accepted practice failing to order further diagnostic testing. If so, fault would have been shared pursuant to CPLR 1601.

 

, ,

THE CJA FORM WAS PUT IN EVIDENCE TO PROVE WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED, WHICH WAS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL-POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CHARGE; BUT THE CJA EMPLOYEE WHO TESTIFIED WAS NOT THE EMPLOYEE WHO CREATED THE DOCUMENT; BECAUSE THE CJA EMPLOYEE COULD NOT BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE DOCUMENT, ITS ADMISSION VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) form which indicated defendant lived where the weapon (the subject of the criminal-possession-of-a-weapon charge) was found constituted testimonial evidence which violated the Confrontation Clause. The witness through whom the form was admitted in evidence did not create the form and, therefore, could not be cross-examined about its contents:

… [T]he testimony of the CJA employee and the CJA form were admitted in order to establish an essential element of the charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, in violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation … . The defendant was never given the opportunity to cross-examine the CJA employee who prepared the CJA form, and, in admitting the CJA form through an employee who did not prepare the form, the Supreme Court failed to ensure that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was protected … . People v Franklin, 2022 NY Slip Op 04308, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: Here a document was admitted into evidence to prove where defendant lived, which was an element of the criminal-possession-of-a-weapon charge. Because the person who created the document did not testify and therefore could not be cross-examined about its contents, defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him was violated. New trial ordered.

 

,

THE POLICE WERE “ACTING IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE FUNCTION” WHEN THEY SEARCHED THE INJURED DEFENDANT AND FOUND A CARTRIDGE; DEFENDANT WAS DRIFTING IN AND OUT OF CONSCIOUSNESS; THE POLICE PROPERLY SEARCHED HIS POCKETS FOR IDENTIFICATION; SUPPRESSION DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the search of plaintiff’s clothing by the police did not require suppression of the cartridge found in defendant’s pocket because the police were “acting in the public service function” in aiding the injured defendant:

… [T]he hearing court … denied suppression of a cartridge recovered from defendant’s pants pocket, correctly finding that “the police were acting in their public service function in rendering aid when searching the defendant’s clothing for identification.” When police arrived, defendant was lying on the ground and screaming that he had been shot. He appeared to have been shot in the leg, he was drifting in and out of consciousness, and he could not state his name. At that point, the officers were treating defendant as an injured victim rather than a suspect, and were not performing a law enforcement function … . Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to believe defendant needed immediate assistance and to search his pants for identification as they waited for him to be transported to the hospital …  In performing this public service function, it was reasonable for the police to ascertain the identity of the person they were aiding and to supply that information to medical personnel, and defendant did not appear capable of communicating his identity. People v Hatchett, 2022 NY Slip Op 04282, First Dept 7-5-22

Practice Point: When the police aid an injured person and search the person’s pockets for identification, they are “acting in the public service function.” Suppression of any contraband found in the search will be denied.

 

, ,

THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION WAS NOT PROVEN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH UNPRESERVED THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the determination of the amount of restitution and remitted for a hearing. The error was not preserved and was considered in the interest of justice. The court further noted that the recipient of the restitution was not put on the record:

… [T]he People failed to establish the victim’s actual out-of-pocket loss by a preponderance of the evidence. The restitution amount ordered by the court deviated from the loss claimed by the restaurant manager in his testimony, and the sole evidence supporting the actual amount of out-of-pocket loss calculated by the court was an undetailed, vague letter ostensibly from the restaurant franchisee’s insurer listing an amount of loss—the calculation and accuracy of which was, by their own representation at the hearing, unknown to the People … . People v Piasta, 2022 NY Slip Op 04243, Fourth Dept 7-1-22

Practice Point: Here the amount of restitution was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The recipient of the restitution was not identified on the record. Although the errors were not preserved, they were considered in the interest of  justice. The matter was remitted for a hearing.

 

,

TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S SUPERVISED VISITATION IS A “DRASTIC REMEDY” WHICH MUST BE SUPPORTED BY “SUBSTANTIAL PROOF” CONTINUED VISITATION “WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE CHILD;” THE PROOF HERE DID NOT MEET THOSE CRITERIA (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined the evidence did not support the “drastic remedy” of terminating mother’s supervised visitation with the child:

Although Family Court found that both the mother and the father “testified credi[]bly that relations between the mother and child ha[d] deteriorated” — a determination that was borne out by the testimony — the “denial of visitation to a noncustodial parent is a drastic remedy” … and the record does not contain “substantial proof” that continued supervised visitation “would be harmful to the child” … . We are mindful of the father’s testimony that the child had returned home from a visit with bent glasses and marks on his leg. However, Family Court did not make any factual findings regarding these allegations, and the maternal grandfather — who drove the child home from that visit — denied ever observing the child’s glasses to be “messed up” or witnessing marks on the child’s legs. On this record, there is an insufficient basis to conclude that the bent glasses and marks observed by the father were caused by the mother’s conduct. Moreover, while the mother herself acknowledged that there were issues in the relationship between her and the child, she indicated that this stemmed from the child’s difficult behavior and her concern about the child making racist comments in front of his three-year-old half-sibling. There was also testimony regarding the positive aspects of their relationship and the maternal grandfather, who did all the driving, corroborated that the child generally seemed content during visits. Notwithstanding the father’s testimony to the contrary, we conclude that the evidence presented was not sufficiently compelling and substantial to justify a wholesale suspension of the mother’s supervised visitation … . Matter of William V. v Christine W., 2022 NY Slip Op 04199, Third Dept 6-3022

Practice Point: The termination of supervised visitation is a “drastic remedy” which requires “substantial proof” continued visitation “would be harmful to the child.” The proof was lacking in this case.

 

, , ,

HERE THE DEFENDANT, IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE EXTENT OF HIS COOPERATION AND WHETHER NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATED THE PROSECUTOR’S WITHDRAWAL OF THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT; THE PEOPLE’S RESPONSE DID NOT ADDRESS THESE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES; THEREFORE COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant had raised several issues in the motion to vacate the conviction which were not addressed by the People’s response. Some of the issues were corroborated in an affidavit from defendant’s prior attorney. Therefore a hearing was necessary:

… [W]e agree with defendant that he is entitled to a hearing on whether counsel was ineffective in connection with defendant’s alleged failure to fully cooperate under the terms of the 2016 cooperation agreement. A hearing is required on a CPL article 440 motion “if the submissions show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established are material and would entitle the defendant to relief” … . In that regard, defendant averred that he consistently gave a truthful account of the burglary and had fully cooperated in the prosecution of [a codefendant] as required by the 2016 cooperation agreement, and his motion papers included a September 2016 supporting deposition from his sister and an affidavit from [his former attorney] to support those claims. Defendant also alleged specific deficiencies in counsel’s performance, namely, that counsel failed to investigate whether the Special Prosecutor’s withdrawal of the 2016 cooperation agreement was impermissibly “premised on bad faith, invidiousness, . . . dishonesty” or unconstitutional considerations and, moreover, failed to discuss the possibility of demanding a hearing on that issue with defendant … . People v Buckley, 2022 NY Slip Op 04197, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: If a motion to vacate the conviction raises substantive issues which are corroborated in some way (here with an affidavit by defendant’s prior attorney), and these substantive issues are not adequately dealt with in the People’s responding papers, a hearing must be held.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED HIS INCARCERATED BROTHER WAS BEING HARASSED BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; HE CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THREATENED TO “BLOW AN OFFICER’S HEAD OFF” “IF THEY TOUCH MY BROTHER;” DEFENDANT’S “MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT” CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s “making a terroristic threat” conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s brother was incarcerated. Defendant was concerned that his brother was being harassed by corrections officers. Defendant allegedly called the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and said he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother:”

…”[A] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when[,] with intent to . . . affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, . . . he or she threatens to commit . . . a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense” (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Penal Law article 490 was enacted following the September 11, 2001 attacks and was “specifically designed to combat the evils of terrorism” … . Accordingly, “[t]he concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act” …  ….

… [T]he evidence fails to establish that defendant “cause[d] a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission” of an offense under the factual circumstance presented here (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Neither the first investigator nor the supervisor took any actions to warn the correctional facility or any other agency or individuals of the threat. While a notice was eventually issued, this was not done until well after the initial threat was made. None of the witnesses provided any testimony that they or anyone else had a reasonable expectation or fear that the threat would be imminently carried out, nor did their actions indicate any such belief. People v Santiago, 2022 NY Slip Op 04196, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s statement he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother” did not cause the investigators who heard the statement to expect or fear the imminent commission of the offense, which is an element of “making a terroristic threat.” Defendant’s conviction was therefore against the weight of the evidence. The decision cautions against interpreting the “terroristic threat” statute loosely.

 

, ,

THE UNEXPLAINED FAILURE TO SEE A VEHICLE BEFORE COLLIDING WITH IT, WITHOUT MORE, DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s criminally negligent homicide conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s failure to see the victim’s vehicle on the side of the highway until it was too late did not rise to the level of criminal negligence (legally insufficient evidence). The victim was in a pickup truck with a sign on the back warning drivers that roadwork was being done ahead:

“A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person” … . “A defendant acts with criminal negligence in this context when the defendant ‘fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk’ that death will result” … . “That ‘risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation'” … . “[C]riminal liability cannot be predicated on every act of carelessness resulting in death[;] . . . the carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence, and that . . . carelessness must be such that its seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong” … . As such, a defendant must “engage[] in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death” … . Importantly, “nonperception of a risk, even if death results, is not enough” … . …

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he unexplained failure of a driver to see the vehicle with which he [or she] subsequently collided does not, without more, support a conviction for the felony of criminally negligent homicide” … . People v Faucett, 2022 NY Slip Op 04195, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: This case includes a detailed description of the criteria for criminal negligence. In the context of a traffic accident, the defendant’s unexplained failure to see the other vehicle until it was too late, without more, does not constitute criminal negligence.

 

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