You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, AS WELL AS THE NOTICE REQUIRMENTS SPELLED OUT IN THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

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

… [P]laintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed to each defendant by certified and first-class mail. The affidavit submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion does not contain an attestation that the affiant had personal knowledge of the purported mailings nor does the affiant attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the Law Offices of McCabe, Weisberg, and Conway, P.C., the entity that allegedly sent the notices to the defendants on behalf of the loan servicer … . …

… [P]laintiff’s submission also failed to demonstrate that the RPAPL 1304 notices allegedly sent to the defendants contained the requisite list of five housing counseling agencies serving the region in which the subject property is located … . …

… [P]laintiff further failed to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notices were sent by the “lender, assignee, or loan servicer” as required by the statute … . … [T]he RPAPL notices were allegedly sent on August 7, 2014, by the Law Offices of McCabe, Weisberg, and Conway, P.C., on behalf of Ocwen Financial, the plaintiff’s loan servicer. However, the limited power of attorney authorizing Ocwen Financial to act on behalf of the plaintiff, which was submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, states that it was executed on and effective as of September 17, 2014.  …

… [P]laintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with a condition precedent contained in the mortgage agreement, requiring the lender to send a notice of default prior to the commencement of the action. The plaintiff’s submission failed to show that the required notice was sent to the defendants by first-class mail or actually delivered to the notice address if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pariser, 2022 NY Slip Op 04534, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Yet again, summary judgment in favor of the bank in a foreclosure proceeding is reversed because the bank did not prove strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage. Reversals on these grounds have appeared every week for at least five years, maybe more.

 

, ,

ONE OF MOTHER’S CHILDREN OPENED A LOCKED WINDOW, TOOK OUT THE SCREEN AND DROPPED HIS SIBLING TWO STORIES WHILE MOTHER WAS HOME; MOTHER COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE INCIDENT; THE NEGLECT FINDING WAS REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the neglect findings. Although mother knew one of her children was sometimes aggressive, she could not have known he would open a locked window, take out the screen, and drop his sibling two stories. Apparently mother was in the bathroom with the door open when this happened. In addition, neither the children’s hygiene nor the condition of the apartment established neglect. The Fourth Department noted that, although no appeal lies from a decision, as opposed to an order, the paper here met the essential requirements of an order:

… [T]here was nothing intrinsically dangerous about leaving two of the children to eat and watch television while the mother was in the bathroom with the door open … . The record establishes that the mother knew that one of her children was sometimes aggressive towards his younger siblings, but there is no evidence in the record that she was aware that he may open a locked window, remove the screen, and drop his sibling from a height of two stories … . In making that determination, we note that the window involved in the incident was not deemed dangerous by a caseworker during a home visit less than a month before the incident.

… [P]etitioner’s evidence regarding the hygiene of the children and the condition of the apartment, which petitioner’s caseworker testified met “minimal standards,” was not sufficient to establish neglect … . Further, although a “finding of neglect may be entered where, though [being] financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so, a parent fails to provide the child[ren] with adequate clothing and basic medical care” … , here, “[n]o evidence was presented at the fact-finding hearing concerning the financial status of the mother” … . Matter of Silas W., 2022 NY Slip Op 04506, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Mother was in the bathroom with the door open when one of her children opened a locked window, took out the screen and dropped his sibling two stories. That scenario did not support the neglect finding. Neither the children’s hygiene nor the condition of the apartment warranted a neglect finding.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT SECOND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s assault second conviction to attempted assault second, determined the proof o physical injury was not legally sufficient:

… [T]he evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he caused physical injury to the victim by means of a dangerous instrument and thus that the conviction of assault in the second degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence … . The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People … , establishes that defendant attempted to stab the victim and the two struggled over the knife; however, the victim suffered no more than minor cuts to her hands that did not require bandaging and caused only transient pain … . … [T]he evidence is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of the lesser included offense of attempted assault in the second degree … . People v Lopez-Sarmiento,2022 NY Slip Op 04493, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Here the evidence the victim suffered “physical injury” as defined in the Penal Law was deemed legally insufficient. The assault second conviction was reduced to attempted assault second.

 

, , ,

IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, VETERINARY RECORDS ARE DISCOVERABLE BY SUBPOENA (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in this dog bite case, determined veterinary records are not protected by Education Law 6714 and are discoverable:

Education Law § 6714 (1) provides that, “[u]pon written request from the owner of an animal which has received treatment from or under the supervision of a veterinarian, such veterinarian shall provide to such owner within a reasonable time period a copy of all records relating to the treatment of such animal. For the purposes of this section, the term ‘records’ shall mean all information concerning or related to the examination or treatment of the animal kept by the veterinarian in the course of his or her practice. A veterinarian may impose a reasonable charge for providing copies of such records. A veterinarian may make available to the owner either the original or a copy of such record or document including x-rays, electrocardiograms and other diagnostic tests and may impose a reasonable fee for the reproduction of such copies.”

Nothing in the plain language of that statute prohibits a veterinarian from providing a copy of treatment records pursuant to a subpoena. Had the legislature intended to create such an exemption, it could have done so using language similar to that found in Education Law § 6527 (3), which provides that “records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function . . . shall [not] be subject to disclosure under article thirty-one of the [CPLR] except as hereinafter provided or as provided by any other provision of law” … . Ashley M. v Marcinkowski, 2022 NY Slip Op 04437, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Pursuant to Education Law 6714, veterinary records in this dog-bite case are discoverable by subpoena.

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PUDDLE ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants (Niagara County Jail and County Sheriff) did not demonstrate they did not create or have constructive notice of the puddle on the floor where plaintiff slipped and fell:

… [D]efendants failed to establish that they did not create the dangerous condition and thus that the court erred in granting the motion with respect to that claim, and we modify the order accordingly … . Defendants submitted evidence that adult visitors and inmates were not allowed to bring drinks to the visitation room, but correction officers, at least three of whom were in the room during visits, were allowed to have drinks in the room. Defendants did not submit evidence that the correction officers in the room did not create the puddle of water on the floor. Although defendants submitted evidence that child visitors were allowed at the time to bring drinks in bottles or sippy cups, they did not submit evidence that any children were in the visitation room that morning before plaintiff entered the room. …

Defendants submitted evidence that employees performed safety inspections of the visitation room, including looking for slipping hazards on the floor, on a routine basis. In particular, the room was inspected before the first visit, throughout the day, and at the end of a shift. Defendants submitted evidence that a correction officer inspected the room at 7:45 a.m. before the first group of visitors arrived at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff was one of the second group of visitors that day and entered the visitation room at approximately 9:30 a.m. We conclude that the reasonableness of defendants’ inspection practices and whether the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendants’ employees to discover and remedy it are issues for a jury to determine … , and defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition … . Propst v Niagara County Jail, 2022 NY Slip Op 04486, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: To warrant summary judgment in a slip and fall case, a defendant must show it did not create or have notice of the condition, here a puddle on the floor, which caused plaintiff to fall. The absence of constructive notice is usually demonstrated by an inspection of the area close in time to the fall. Here the defendants presented evidence of an inspection an hour and 45 minutes before the fall, which was deemed to raise a question of fact on constructive notice for the jury.

, ,

CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDED DISMISSAL OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING THE ALLEGED PREMATURE DISCHARGE OF PLAINTIFF FROM EMERGENCY CARE AFTER SHE EXPERIENCED SYMPTOMS OF A STROKE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s medical malpractice causes of action against the doctor who discharged her from emergency care and the hospital should not have been dismissed because the expert affidavits presented conflicting opinions. Plaintiff experienced symptoms consistent with a stroke and went to the hospital. An MRI was done but plaintiff was released before a final review of the MRI. Evidence of a stroke was ultimately found on the MRI. Plaintiff’s expert opined that the event which caused plaintiff to go to the hospital was a transient ischemic attack (TIA), not a stroke, and that the stroke occurred at the hospital about when the MRI was performed:

… [B]y submitting the affidavit of their expert, [plaintiffs] raised an issue of fact on the issue whether Dr. Kandel deviated from the standard of care … . Dr. Kandel permitted plaintiff to leave the hospital before her brain MRI had undergone a final review by a neuroradiologist. Plaintiffs’ expert opined that discharging plaintiff before a final review of the scans was complete constituted a deviation from the standard of care in light of plaintiff’s medical history, which indicated a significant stroke risk.

… [P]laintiffs raised a question of fact with respect to causation … . The hospital defendants relied upon the affirmation of Dr. Kandel’s medical expert, who opined that any alleged negligence is not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries inasmuch as plaintiff suffered a stroke at or before 3 a.m. on October 27, and that the window in which to administer tPA, an anti-clot medication, had closed long before plaintiff arrived at the hospital for treatment approximately 13 hours later. … [P]laintiffs submitted an expert affidavit asserting … that the symptoms plaintiff experienced on the morning of October 27 were the result of a transient ischemic attack (TIA), which results in temporary stroke-like symptoms but does not result in a blockage, and that she did not experience the actual blockage until sometime later in the day, around the time of her brain MRI. Plaintiffs’ expert further opined that, had plaintiff stayed at the hospital overnight and had the MRI been read correctly, tPA could have been administered when plaintiff’s new symptoms presented. Clark v Rachfal, 2022 NY Slip Op 04472, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Conflicting expert opinions preclude summary judgment in medical malpractice actions.

 

,

GIVEN WHAT THE INFORMANT TOLD THE POLICE, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT GRABBED AT HIS WAISTBAND WHEN THE POLICE APPROACHED HIM ON THE STREET PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION THE DEFENDANT HAD A WEAPON AND THEREBY JUSTIFIED PURSUIT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE INFORMATION FROM THE INFORMANT WAS NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFDENDANT GRABBED AT HIS WAISTBAND BEFORE OR AFTER THE CHASE STARTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police had “reasonable suspicion” to pursue defendant as he fled when the police approached on the street. The defendant discarded a handgun as he fled:

… [P]olice responded to a 911 call that a parolee wanted on an outstanding warrant and who was known to possess guns was a passenger in a certain vehicle. The officers found a vehicle matching the description given by the 911 caller and followed it, losing sight of the vehicle momentarily but then spotting it stopped on a curb with the passenger standing outside the vehicle. As one of the officers exited the police vehicle and began to approach the passenger, the passenger ran away while holding the left side of his waistband and the officer chased after him. …

The court properly determined that the officers had at least an objective, credible reason to approach defendant and request information … . Defendant’s subsequent flight with his hand on his waistband from the approaching officer, combined with the 911 caller’s report about a wanted violent parolee who was potentially armed, and the police officers’ observations confirming the vehicle and suspect descriptions from the 911 call, provided the officers with reasonable suspicion to pursue defendant … .

From the dissent:

The People assert that the court properly determined that the pursuit was justified because, in addition to the information provided by the informant, the arresting officer observed defendant grabbing the front of his pants while running away, as if he had a gun in his waistband. Although defendant’s act of grabbing his waistband increased the degree of suspicion, perhaps even to the level required for pursuit, the evidence at the suppression hearing does not establish whether the arresting officer observed that conduct before or after he gave chase. People v Leonard, 2022 NY Slip Op 04468, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Coupled with information provided from an informant claiming the defendant had guns and was violent, the defendant’s grabbing at his waistband as the police approached him on the street provided the police with reasonable suspicion the defendant had a weapon, thereby justifying police pursuit when defendant fled. The dissent argued the information from the informant did not provide reasonable suspicion and the People did not prove defendant grabbed at his waistband before he fled.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT 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. Plaintiff did not prove the RPAPL 1304 was properly mailed to the defendants:

… [P]laintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff relied on copies of the RPAPL 1304 notices allegedly mailed, purported domestic return receipts, and an affidavit of Catherine Rogers, a foreclosure specialist for Seterus, Inc., the plaintiff’s purported servicer. However, the domestic return receipts were unsigned and undated, and there was no other indication that the certified or first class mailings were accepted by the post office for mailing. Rogers also did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the mailing or of Seterus, Inc.’s standard office procedure designed to ensure that the notices were mailed. Thus, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima, facie, that it complied with the notice of default requirement of the mortgage agreement … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Young, 2022 NY Slip Op 04292, Second Dept 7-6-22

Practice Point: The mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 must be strictly complied with and compliance must be proven in the bank’s summary judgment motion papers. Without proof of strict compliance, the motion must be denied.

 

, ,

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.

 

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