You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE NONDOMICILIARY DID NOT HAVE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK; NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THIS TRUST LITIGATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over this trust litigation:

In the petition, the settlor and beneficiary of the trust (decedent) sought an accounting and removal of respondent, a Virginia resident, as trustee. The trust was created in 1996 in New Jersey. At the time the trust was created, decedent was a resident of Illinois and respondent was a resident of Georgia. Respondent administered the trust from Georgia until he relocated to Virginia, and he administered the trust from Virginia thereafter. Decedent relocated to New York in 2016. Solely as a consequence of decedent’s choice of residence, respondent sent to New York occasional trust-related correspondence, including “five or six” checks disbursing trust assets.

… “Due process requires that a nondomiciliary have ‘certain minimum contacts’ with the forum and ‘that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ ” … A nondomiciliary has minimum contacts with New York if he or she “purposefully avails” himself or herself of “the privilege of conducting activities within” New York … . thereby ” ‘invoking the benefits and protections’ ” of New York’s laws … . Our focus is on ” ‘the relationship among the [respondent], the forum, and the litigation’ “… . We conclude that respondent lacks the requisite minimum contacts with the New York forum. He does not live, own property, or conduct business in New York. The first and only relationship that New York had to the subject trust was 20 years after its creation, when decedent became domiciled in New York and respondent disbursed trust assets to her in New York … . Matter of Murad Irrevocable Trust, 2021 NY Slip Op 04823, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF AN AFFIDAVIT FROM TRIAL COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on the motion to vacate the conviction on ineffective assistance grounds, despite the absence of an affidavit from trial counsel:

[Defendant’s] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was properly raised on his CPL 440.10 motion inasmuch as it is based on matters outside the trial record … . Here, defendant’s submissions on the motion raise factual issues requiring a hearing concerning trial counsel’s failure to interview and call the two exculpatory witnesses … , even in the absence of an affidavit from trial counsel … . We thus conclude that defendant is entitled to a hearing on his entire claim of ineffective assistance of counsel inasmuch as ” ‘such a claim constitutes a single, unified claim that must be assessed in totality’ ” … . People v Ross, 2021 NY Slip Op 04820, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ANNULLED THE ELECTION BOARD’S DESIGNATION OF AN EARLY VOTING POLLING PLACE BECAUSE THE BOARD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATION MET THE ELECTION LAW REQUIREMENTS MANDATING A LOCATION ACCESSIBLE TO CITY RESIDENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined Supreme Court properly annulled the determination of the Rensselaer County Board of Elections designating an early voting polling pace pursuant to Election Law section 8-600. The 3rd Department also granted the motion to intervene in the Article 78 proceeding brought by the NAACP and three minority and/or disabled residents who argued for a polling place accessible to city residents dependent on public transportation:

… [I]n designating early voting polling places, the Board “shall have at least one polling place” in the City (as Rensselaer County’s most populous municipality) and, because the City has public transportation, “such polling place shall be situated along such transportation routes” (Election Law § 8-600 [2] [a]). Election Law § 8-600 (2) (e) further states that any early voting polling place “shall be located so that voters in the county have adequate and equitable access, taking into consideration population density, travel time to the polling place, proximity to other early voting poll sites, public transportation routes, commuter traffic patterns and such other factors the board of elections deems appropriate” (see 9 NYCRR 6211.1 [c]). * * *

… [W]e conclude that the Board did not adequately address “whether the early voting site[s are] on or near public transportation” (9 NYCRR 6211.1 [c] [2] [iv]). The failure to address that mandatory factor “precludes meaningful review of the rationality of” the Board’s siting determination, renders the decision arbitrary and capricious and, by itself, warrants annulment … . The Board failed to meaningfully address most of the other factors as well. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly granted the petition and annulled the Board’s determination designating early voting polling places for the 2021 election … . Matter of People of the State of New York v Schofield, 2021 NY Slip Op 04785, Third Dept 8-26-21

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANT’S CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT BLAMING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON HIS PRIOR ATTORNEY WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR VACATING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s (Echevarria’s) affidavit blaming the default in this foreclosure action on his prior attorney was not sufficient to support vacating the default judgment:

… [W]hile CPLR 2005 allows courts to excuse a default due to law office failure, it was not the Legislature’s intent to routinely excuse such defaults, and mere neglect will not be accepted as a reasonable excuse” … . “A conclusory, undetailed and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse” … .

Echevarria submitted an affidavit in which he asserted that his defaults “were due entirely to [the] negligence” of his prior attorney, who, without Echevarria’s knowledge, failed to file an answer to the complaint or opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment against Echevarria. According to his affidavit, Echevarria only learned of the defaults upon receiving notice of the foreclosure sale. We agree with the plaintiff that Echevarria’s claim of law office failure, which was based solely on the “conclusory and unsubstantiated” allegations in his affidavit, was insufficient to amount to a reasonable excuse … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Rodriguez, 2021 NY Slip Op 04784, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

, ,

WHETHER A DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AFFECTED PLAINTIFF’S PROGNOSIS IS USUALLY A JURY QUESTION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert raised questions of fact which precluded summary judgment in favor of defendant. The court noted that whether a delay in diagnosis affected prognosis is usually a question for the jury:

“Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions” … . On a motion for summary judgment, the party opposing the motion is entitled to every favorable inference that may be drawn from the pleadings and affidavits submitted by the parties … . “Conflicting expert opinions raise credibility issues which are to be resolved by the factfinder” … . …

Contrary to [defendant] Riegelhaupt’s contention, the plaintiffs’ expert, who is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology, was qualified to give an opinion of Riegelhaupt’s care of the injured plaintiff in Riegelhaupt’s capacity as the injured plaintiff’s primary care physician. Moreover, there are triable issues of fact as to whether Riegelhaupt assumed a duty to assist in the treatment of the injured plaintiff’s gastrointestinal issue, and whether Riegelhaupt’s alleged departures delayed the diagnosis of the injured plaintiff’s ulcerative colitis and decreased his chances of having a better outcome. Whether a diagnostic delay affected a patient’s prognosis is typically an issue that should be presented to a jury … . Wiater v Lewis, 2021 NY Slip Op 04783, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

, , ,

IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS COMPLICATED FORECLOSURE DECISION, THE 2ND DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED (1) WHEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED AND (2) THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, addressed (1) when evidence presented in reply can be considered and (2) how to meet the criteria of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

Supreme Court … should have considered the Lee affidavit … . … [T]he defendant did not object to the plaintiff’s submission of the Lee affidavit, despite its being submitted for the first time in reply, and does not raise any objection to its admission on appeal. In any event, “[a]lthough a party moving for summary judgement cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply” … , the Lee affidavit was an exception to that rule, as it was submitted in response to a specific argument raised for the first time in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion and in support of the defendant’s cross motion … , and the defendant could have responded to the Lee affidavit in his reply papers in further support of his cross motion … . * * *

… [W]hile the Lee affidavit was sufficient to lay a proper foundation for the admission of a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518(a) … , Lee failed to identify the records upon which she relied in making the statements, and the plaintiff failed to submit copies of the records themselves. “[T]he business record exception to the hearsay rule applies to a ‘writing or record’ … . . . [and] it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . “While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence, a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay” … . Thus, Lee’s assertions as to the contents of the plaintiff’s records were “inadmissible hearsay to the extent that the records she purport[ed] to describe were not submitted with her affidavit” … . Moreover, while “a witness may always testify as to matters which are within his or her personal knowledge through personal observation” … , Lee did not attest to such personal knowledge regarding the physical whereabouts of the consolidated note during the relevant time … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Pickering-Robinson, 2021 NY Slip Op 04775, Second Dept 8-25-21​

 

, ,

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

 

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