You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the bank’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was insufficient. The court noted that, under the facts, standing to contest the bank’s compliance with RPAPL 1304 was personal to each borrower, one borrower could not assert that defense on behalf of another borrower:

JPMorgan submitted an affidavit, entitled an “Affidavit of Mailing,” signed by James A. Ranaldi, an “Authorized Signer” employed by JPMorgan. Ranaldi, however, did not attest to personal knowledge of the actual mailings. Nor did he state that he had personal knowledge “of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Although Ranaldi asserted, based upon his review of business records associated with the subject loan, that “a ninety-day (90) pre-foreclosure notice dated 12/04/2009 was sent by regular first class and certified mail under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service addressed to [the defendant at the subject property],” “it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted”… . The records attached to Ranaldi’s affidavit provided evidence that the 90-day notice was sent to the defendant by certified mail. But none of the documents, considered individually or together, including the copies of the notice letters themselves, provided any information as to whether the 90-day notice was sent to the defendant by regular first-class mail … . Without business records proving the matter asserted, Ranaldi’s “unsubstantiated and conclusory” statement, by itself, was insufficient to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed to the defendant by first-class mail … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Kutch, 2022 NY Slip Op 01066, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

,

TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON A PATIENT’S FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME), THE NO-FAULT INSURER MUST SHOW BOTH THAT THE PATIENT DID NOT SHOW UP AND THE REQUEST FOR THE IME AND THE SCHEDULING OF THE IME COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIRED TIME-FRAMES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-insurer’s motion for summary judgment in this no-fault insurance action should not have been granted. Although an insurer need not pay no-fault claims if the patient did not appear for an independent medical examination (IME), in order to warrant an award of  summary judgment the insurer must demonstrate compliance with the required time frames for requesting and scheduling the IME:

The failure to appear for a properly scheduled independent medical examination (IME) requested by the insurer “when, and as often as, it may reasonably require is a breach of a condition precedent to coverage under the no-fault policy” and vitiates coverage ab initio … . However, to meet its prima facie burden for summary judgment where it has denied a claim for no-fault benefits based on a patient’s failure to appear for an IME, the insurer must establish that it requested IMEs in accordance with the procedures and time frames set forth in the no-fault implementing regulations and that the patient did not appear … . Because it is impossible to discern from the record in each case here whether plaintiff complied with the requisite time frames requiring it to request IMEs within 15 days of receiving appellants’ claims and scheduling the IMEs for within 30 days of receiving their claims (11 NYCRR 65-3.5[b],[d] ), plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment … . American Tr. Ins. Co. v Martinez, 2022 NY Slip Op 00963, First Dept 2-15-22

 

, , ,

A STATEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AUTHENTICATING PHOTOGRAPHS OF PETITIONER’S CAR RUNNING A RED LIGHT NEED NOT BE NOTARIZED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city (NYC) was not required to submit a notarized statement from the Department of Transportation authenticating photographs of petitioner’s car running a red light:

For over half a century, the legislature has consistently provided for prima facie liability for minor traffic offenses to be established by a simple, nonnotarized affirmation under penalty of perjury, using the same “sworn to or affirmed” language. Legislative history establishes the plain intent and meaning of the “sworn to or affirmed” language of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-a(d): that the reviewing technician merely affirm, under penalty of perjury, the veracity of his statement. No notarization is necessary.

In the instant administrative proceeding, the notice of liability was supported by the requisite affirmation. The video images authenticated by the technician show petitioner’s car running a red light. This constitutes, as per the statute, “prima facie evidence” of the traffic violation (Vehicle and Traffic Law §1111-a[d]). Matter of Monroe St. v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 00972, First Dept 2-15-22

 

, , ,

THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the so-called two-hour rule does not apply to a driver’s license revocation administrative hearing after a DWI arrest. Within two hours of arrest the police can warn the driver that a refusal to submit to the blood-alcohol breath test is admissible at trial. If the request to submit to the test is made and the refusal warnings are given more than two hours after arrest, however, the refusal is not admissible at trial. Here the petitioner refused the DWI breath test three hours after arrest, after the refusal warnings were given. He argued the two-hour rule should apply and the refusal should not be considered at the Department of Motor Vehicle’s (DMV’s) administrative license revocation hearing:

Petitioner’s reliance on the statutory interpretation analysis in People v Odum [31 NY3d 344] as support for a motorist’s substantive right to refuse a chemical test without consequence is misplaced. Odum addressed the admissibility at trial of the results of a chemical test administered more than two hours after the defendant’s arrest, and whether the refusal warnings, including the inaccurate warning regarding the use of any refusal at a criminal trial, as given to him rendered his consent to the test involuntary. We emphasized that the 1973 statute authorizing the admissibility of evidence of a test refusal at a criminal trial was in derogation of common law and concluded as a result that the statutory provision authorizing such admission—Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (f)—had to be strictly construed to include the two-hour rule … . In stark contrast, the limitation on the scope of the revocation hearing in section 1194 (2) (c) is not in derogation of the common law and is a subsequently enacted provision that specifically governs the issues that may be considered at an administrative hearing … . Matter of Endara-Caicedo v Vehicles, 2022 NY Slip Op 00959, CtApp 2-15-22

 

,

THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY; ALTHOUGH BURGLARY SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE LESSER OFFENSE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THAT POSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, dismissing the burglary second count, determined the People’s request to instruct the jury on burglary second as a lesser included offense of burglary second as a sexually motivated offense should not have been granted. Although burglary second is a lesser included offense of burglary second as a sexually motivated offense, the People’s case focused only on the sexual motivation. Defendant therefore did not have notice the jury would consider burglary second:

… [T]he court improperly charged the lesser-included offense because the People, through the way they presented their case, deprived defendant of notice of the possibility that the jury would be asked to consider a lesser-included. In People v Barnes (50 NY2d 375 [1980]), the Court of Appeals observed that, where the People in a burglary case limit to a particular crime the act that the defendant intended to commit while unlawfully in a building, “the court is obliged to hold the prosecution to this narrower theory alone” … . * * *

In opposing defendant’s pretrial motion to sever certain charges in the indictment from the others, the People focused exclusively on defendant’s sexual harassment of the complainant, and on his grabbing the arm and pulling the shirt of another woman he encountered in the dorm. In making an application for the admission of certain Molineux evidence, the prosecutor focused only on the theory that defendant entered the dorm to satisfy his own sexual urges. And, in his opening statement, the prosecutor stated that defendant “knowingly and unlawfully entered the private area of a dorm to do exactly what he had been doing minutes prior — to grab, to grope and to harass the young women who lived there.” Further, the prosecutor downplayed the behavior defendant displayed towards some men he saw in the lobby of the dorm, stating that “the evidence will show that he was substantially motivated by his desire to abuse women when he passed that turnstile and unlawfully entered the private area of the dorm.” People v Seignious, 2022 NY Slip Op 00948, First Dept 2-10-22

 

,

DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION AFFIRMED; DURING A POLICE CHASE, DEFENDANT DROVE THE WRONG WAY ON A HIGHWAY AND CRASHED HEAD-ON INTO AN ONCOMING CAR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the evidence supported defendant’s depraved indifference murder conviction stemming from his driving the wrong way on a highway and crashing into an oncoming car during a police chase:

While fleeing from the police, defendant drove 14 blocks against oncoming traffic on the West Side Highway, a major roadway, despite openings in the median between the north and southbound lanes, while running several red lights and driving onto the curb and sidewalk. Additionally, defendant did not avail himself of parking lots and driveways on the west side of the Highway, where he could have pulled off to avoid any collision with an oncoming vehicle. Heading north, the Highway merges into, and becomes, the Henry Hudson Parkway at the intersection of 57th Street. Instead of utilizing the last available opportunity to turn into the north bound lanes, defendant made the decision to continue driving in the wrong direction and entered onto the Parkway. It is unrefuted that the Parkway had no breaks in the median through which he could return to the northbound lanes and that oncoming cars were going even faster there than on the Highway because the speed limit increased from 35 mph to 50 mph. After he got on the Parkway, defendant remained in the lane immediately to the left of the concrete barrier separating the northbound and southbound lanes, made no effort to change lanes or to swerve to avoid oncoming vehicles and made no effort to stop or slow down, despite the fact that he was now on a parkway. He continued driving this way on the Parkway for seven blocks at which time he collided, head-on, with a vehicle driving in the proper direction in the southbound lane. People v Herrera, 2022 NY Slip Op 00949, First Dept 2-10-22

 

,

THE AFFIDAVIT UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE AFFIANT AND THE CALCULATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED, RENDERING THE INFORMATION INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report should not have been confirmed. The affidavit submitted by the mortgage servicer was insufficient and the records upon which the calculations in the affidavit were based were not produced:

… [T]he referee’s report was not substantially supported by the record. The report was based in significant part on the affidavit of Elizabeth A. Ostermann, a vice president for Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC (hereinafter Carrington), the purported “servicer and attorney-in-fact” for the plaintiff. However, Ostermann did not set forth when Carrington began servicing the loan and did not provide a power of attorney appointing it as attorney-in-fact … . Moreover, Ostermann did not state that “she was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures” at Carrington … .

Furthermore, computations based on the “review of unidentified and unproduced business records . . . constitute[ ] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ ] probative value” … . Here, the plaintiff did not submit the business records upon which Ostermann purportedly relied in computing the total amount due on the mortgage. Trust v Campbell, 2022 NY Slip Op 00845, Second Dept 2-9-22

Similar issue and result in HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sharon, 2022 NY Slip Op 00852, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER TRIAL ON THE GROUND PLAINTIFF DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; COMPLAINT REINSTATED AND JUDGMENT AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action properly laid a proper foundation at trial for the admission of documents making out a prima facie case. Therefore the action should not have been dismissed and a judgment in favor of plaintiff should have been entered. At trial plaintiff established standing to bring the action, the defendant’s default, and compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304. Bank of Am., N.A. v Bloom, 2022 NY Slip Op 00839, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

,

A PHOTOGRAPH DOWNLOADED FROM FACEBOOK ALLEGEDLY SHOWING DEFENDANT WEARING CLOTHES SIMILAR TO THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMIITTED IN EVIDENCE; THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that a photograph downloaded from Facebook allegedly showing the defendant wearing clothes similar to those worn by the perpetrator was not authenticated and should not have been admitted in evidence:

In order to admit a photograph into evidence, it must be authenticated by proof that it is genuine and that it has not been tampered with … . Here, the People failed to properly authenticate the photograph. The People’s only authentication evidence consisted of the testimony of a police witness who searched for the Facebook profile 1½ years after the crime. They did not proffer any evidence or testimony demonstrating that the photograph was “a fair and accurate representation of the scene depicted or that it was unaltered” … . To the contrary, the police witness testified that he did not know whether the photograph had been altered. Furthermore, the People did not present any evidence “to establish that the web page belonged to, and was controlled by, [the] defendant” or any evidence as to when the photograph was created or posted … .

… “[A]dmission of the photograph here lacked a proper foundation and, as such, constituted error as a matter of law” … . People v Mayo, 2022 NY Slip Op 00881, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE ARRESTING OFFICER OBSERVED SOME INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS BY THE DEFENDANT AT A LOCATION KNOWN FOR DRUG ACTIVITY, THE OFFICER DID NOT SEE ANY PROPERTY OR CURRENCY CHANGE HANDS AND DID NOT FIND ANY DRUGS OR CURRENCY ON THE DEFENDANT OR THE TWO MEN WITH HIM ON THE STREET; THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST; THE HEROIN SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND IN THE POLICE CAR AND DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE HAD “DITCHED” THE DRUGS IN THE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress the heroin found in back seat of a police car and his statement that he had “ditched” the drugs in the car should have been suppressed because the arresting officer did not have probable cause at the time of defendant’s arrest. The officer had observed defendant engage in what appeared to the officer to be drug transactions on the street. But when the officer approached the defendant and two others on the street no drugs or currency were found. The defendant had been handcuffed and was subsequently arrested for loitering:

Detective Petrucci did not have probable cause to reasonably believe that the defendant was committing, or had committed, a crime, at any point prior to the defendant’s arrest (see id.). Detective Petrucci testified that he arrested the defendant on the basis of the defendant’s purported commission of loitering in the first degree, which is defined as “loiter[ing] or remain[ing] in any place with one or more persons for the purpose of unlawfully using or possessing a controlled substance” (Penal Law § 240.36). However, there was no testimony at the suppression hearing that the defendant had “remained” in any place with the other individuals with whom he interacted. The interactions between the defendant and the other individuals were described at the hearing as “quick,” “fluid,” and lasting approximately one minute. * * *

Detective Petrucci did not observe any physical property or currency being handled by the defendant or exchanged between the defendant and either Flores or Mugaburu prior to approaching the defendant, and did not otherwise recover any drugs or currency from the defendant, Flores, or Mugaburu prior to the defendant’s arrest. Contrary to the People’s contention, the observations that Detective Petrucci did make—several brief, nondescript interactions involving the defendant at an address known to the police for past drug activity—were not a sufficient basis for Detective Petrucci to form a reasonable belief that a narcotics offense was occurring or had been committed. People v Jones, 2022 NY Slip Op 00878, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

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