You are here: / Evidence
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE MAY HAVE MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, THEY WERE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT AUTHENTICATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the documentary evidence submitted by defendant (Maspeth) in support of its argument it did not create the depression in the roadway where plaintiff allegedly fell was inadmissible hearsay. Although the documents may have met the criteria for the public document exception to the hearsay rule, the documents were not authenticated:

Maspeth submitted various documents from City agencies … which it claimed were admissible under the common-law public document exception to the hearsay rule. Under the common-law public document exception, “[w]hen a public officer is required or authorized, by statute or nature of the duty of the office, to keep records or to make reports of acts or transactions occurring in the course of the official duty, the records or reports so made by or under the supervision of the public officer are admissible in evidence” since such public official “has no motive to distort the truth” and the writing is prepared in discharge of a public duty … . While the documents are admissible without the testimony of the official who made it, the documents must still be authenticated … . Here, even assuming that the documents submitted by Maspeth would otherwise meet the requirements under the common-law public document exception to the hearsay rule, they were not authenticated (… Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C4520:2), and were, therefore, not admissible as evidence. As such, Maspeth failed to establish, prima facie, with evidence in admissible form, that its work at the location prior to the date of the subject accident was not the cause of the depression in the roadway which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. Rosenfeld v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04770, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

, ,

EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE THE WATER-ON-FLOOR CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS FIRST PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THAT ISSUE; ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS INSPECTED AT 7:00 AT THE START OF THE EVENT AND SOMETIME THEREAFTER, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL AT 8:30, NEAR THE END OF THE EVENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this water-on-floor slip and fall case should not have been granted. The defendants first addressed whether they created the dangerous conditions in their reply papers, so they did not meet their burden on that issue. In addition they did not demonstrate the lack of constructive notice of the condition because there was no evidence the area was inspected close in time to the alleged fall:

… [T]he defendants were required to demonstrate, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged wet condition … . The defendants failed to make such a showing since they argued only that they lacked actual and constructive notice of the condition. While the defendants addressed the issue of creation for the first time in their reply papers, they failed to make a prima facie showing that they or their agents did not create the alleged wet condition, as it was their obligation to address this issue in their original motion papers … . …

… [T]he defendants’ submissions in support of their motion, including the affidavit of Daniel Sullivan … were insufficient to demonstrate … that the defendants lacked constructive notice of the alleged wet condition. According to Sullivan, he was present at the school function but did not witness the injured plaintiff’s fall. Although he stated that he inspected the floor prior to the event beginning at 7:00 p.m. and at times during the event and did not see any debris or water on the floor, he also stated that the injured plaintiff fell at approximately 8:30 p.m. “near the end of the event.” Sullivan did not provide specific information as to when the area where the injured plaintiff fell was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time of the accident … . Rivera v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 04769, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

,

THE DEFENSE REQUEST TO PRESENT THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s request to present an unavailable witness’s grand jury testimony should have been granted:

The County Court committed error, however, when it denied the defendant’s request to introduce the grand jury testimony of a witness who had since become unavailable to testify at trial. “[A] defendant’s constitutional right to due process requires the admission of hearsay evidence consisting of Grand Jury testimony when the declarant has become unavailable to testify at trial, and the hearsay testimony is material, exculpatory, and has sufficient indicia of reliability” … . Here, the proffered grand jury testimony was both material and exculpatory since it consisted of eyewitness testimony that, while positively identifying the codefendant as one of the shooters at the scene of the crime, provided a description of the second shooter that was inconsistent with a description of the defendant. Moreover, a review of the grand jury testimony reveals that the prosecutor had a full and fair opportunity to examine the witness, thus satisfying the “indicia of reliability” prong of the test … , and it was uncontested at trial that the witness was unavailable. People v Johnson, 2021 NY Slip Op 04763, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

,

ROBBERY FIRST REDUCED TO ROBBERY SECOND BECAUSE A THREAT TO USE A GUN IS NOT “DISPLAY” OF A GUN; “POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT” COUNTS VACATED BECAUSE THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the robbery first conviction must be reduced to robbery second because defendant’s alleged verbal threat to use a gun was not accompanied hand movement or display of a weapon. In addition, the warrantless search of defendant’s wallet was improper and the related “possession of a forged instrument” counts were vacated:

“To sustain a conviction for robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15[4]), ‘[t]he People must show that the defendant consciously displayed something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm, with the intent of forcibly taking property, and that the victim actually perceived the display'”… . “[I]t is the ‘display’ of what appears to be a firearm, and not the mere threat to use one, which is required” … . “A mere verbal threat is insufficient” as the words must be accompanied by some affirmative action appealing to one or more of the victim’s actual senses … . Here, the witness, whose dry cleaning store had been robbed on an earlier occasion, while testifying that the defendant threatened to use the “gun again,” denied seeing him make any motions with his hands. …

… [D]efendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree under counts 44 and 45 of the indictment must be vacated. The defendant’s wallet was improperly searched at the time of arrest … , rather than later as part of a “stationhouse inspection of an arrestee’s personal effects” … . People v Costan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04760, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage in this foreclosure action was insufficient:

RPAPL 1304 provides that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower . . . including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower” (RPAPL 1304[1]). “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … . RPAPL 1304 requires that the notice be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower … . The plaintiff can establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 by submitting domestic return receipts, proof of a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, or an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice actually occurred … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice by first-class mail actually occurred. Graves [document management specialist] did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the mailing, did not describe a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, and did not attach proof of first-class mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the mailing of the notice of default in accordance with the terms of the mortgage agreement actually occurred … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Donovan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04748, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

, ,

THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION WAS AFFIRMED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF THE JUVENILE KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

Although the Second Department affirmed the juvenile delinquency adjudication, two dissenters argued the presentment agency did not prove the juvenile was capable of knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waiving his Miranda rights. The juvenile’s expert provided evidence of the juvenile’s limited intellectual functioning:

From the dissent:

The expert’s uncontradicted opinion was that the appellant had “fundamental problems” in understanding and comprehending Miranda rights. Specifically, the appellant believed that he had to waive his right to remain silent in order to find out what the detectives were questioning him about. The appellant did not understand what it meant for a statement to be “used against him.” Further, he did not understand the role of an attorney in the context of an interrogation.

Given the appellant’s young age, low IQ scores, and limited intellectual functioning, there are serious doubts about the appellant’s ability to knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights under the circumstances … . Notably, the Presentment Agency did not introduce any expert testimony contradicting the conclusions reached by the appellant’s expert forensic psychologist … . The conclusions of the appellant’s expert were confirmed by the appellant’s educational records showing that he had been selected for an individualized education plan (hereinafter IEP) and had consistently been evaluated as having intellectual disabilities, including a low IQ with reading, listening, and comprehension difficulties. Matter of Tyler L., 2021 NY Slip Op 04713, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

,

AN INSPECTION OF THE BLACKTOP FIVE TO SEVEN WEEKS BEFORE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED IN A HOLE AND FELL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the hole in the blacktop where plaintiff allegedly fell:

“To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, [a] defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … .

Here, the defendants submitted evidence that a paving contractor inspected the parking lot prior to the plaintiff’s accident, and found no defective conditions in the area of the plaintiff’s accident. However, that inspection occurred approximately five to seven weeks prior to the plaintiff’s accident … . Moreover, although the defendants’ property manager submitted an affidavit in which she attested that she did not find any potholes or pothole-type conditions during her inspection of the area a few days after the plaintiff’s accident, her contemporaneous notes and her deposition testimony acknowledged that she found, and had repaired, three “tiny holes” or “small spots by each curb curve” in the subject parking lot. Hughes v Tower Crestwood 2015, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04705, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

, ,

FATHER ACKNOWLEDGED IMPREGNATING THE OLDEST CHILD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FATHER WAS PROPER; HOWEVER THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHEN MOTHER LEARNED OF THE PREGNANCY AND WHETHER SHE KNEW WHO THE FATHER WAS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined summary judgment on the abuse and neglect allegations against father was properly granted, but summary judgment on the abuse and neglect allegations against mother should not have been granted. Father acknowledged he impregnated the oldest child (who was eleven at the time of the birth). But there were questions of fact about whether mother knew who the father was and whether she know the child was pregnant and therefore in need of medical care:

Although it is a drastic procedural device rarely used in Family Court proceedings, Family Court may grant summary judgment in an abuse and neglect proceeding if no triable issue of fact exists … . On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the burden of establishing its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . If this burden is met, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact … . In resolving a motion for summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party … .

* * * Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the mother and according her the benefit of every favorable inference, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that the mother knew or should have known of the father’s sexual abuse and impregnation of the oldest child or that the mother fostered or allowed the children to live in a sexually charged household.

* * * Although the mother provided some testimony as to when she learned of the pregnancy,[FN9] her testimony changed during the course of the lengthy hearing and a determination as to which, if any, of her accounts was credible is inappropriate on a motion for summary judgment … . Matter of Kai G. (Amanda G.), 2021 NY Slip Op 04682, Third Dept 8-12-21

 

,

THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION LAID A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS DESCRIBED IN IT, BUT THE RECORDS THEMSELVES WERE NOT ATTACHED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s representative in this foreclosure action demonstrated in her affidavit that she was familiar with the relevant business records, but did not attach the records. Therefor the affidavit was hearsay:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted … the affidavit of Denise Dickman, … the plaintiff’s loan servicer, who averred that she was familiar with the business records maintained … for the purpose of servicing mortgage loans for the plaintiff and that she had personal knowledge of the manner in which those business records were created. Dickman further averred that the satisfaction of mortgage was intended to be recorded against the second mortgage, under which the defendant had defaulted and which [the bank] had “charged off as uncollectable.” However, “[d]ue to a clerical error, a loan number was not included with the processing request for the charge off,” and, consequently, a satisfaction of mortgage was “prepared, executed and filed in error” … .

Since Dickman attested that she was familiar with [the bank’s] record-keeping practices and procedures, her affidavit laid a proper foundation for the admission of the business records on which she relied in asserting that the satisfaction of mortgage was erroneously filed due to a clerical error … . However, Dickman’s assertions as to the contents of those records were inadmissible since the records themselves were not submitted with her affidavit … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Kandra, 2021 NY Slip Op 04679, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

, ,

THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient evidence of defendant’s default or the bank’s compliance the the notice requirements of the mortgage and RPAPL 1304:

… [Plaintiff’s representative] did not attest that he was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff or those of the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, or that the records generated by the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest were incorporated into the plaintiff’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business (see CPLR 4518[a] … ), and failed to attach any business records of the plaintiff or its predecessor in interest to his affidavit ,,, . Moreover, to the extent that the …. employee’s purported knowledge of [defendant’s] default was based upon his review of unidentified business records … , his affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . …

The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or any proof of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served [defendant]  pursuant to the terms of RPAPL 1304 … . The … employee’s affidavit was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to [defendant] in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the employee did not provide evidence of the plaintiff’s standard office mailing procedure and provided no evidence of the actual mailing … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeLoney, 2021 NY Slip Op 04655, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

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