You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not present sufficient evidence of standing to bring the foreclosure action. Therefore the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Generally, in order to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a foreclosure action, a plaintiff must produce the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the default … . Where the plaintiff’s standing has been placed in issue by the defendants’ answer, the plaintiff must prove its standing as part of its prima facie showing … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff failed, prima facie, ]to establish its standing to commence this action. The copy of the note submitted in support of the plaintiff’s motion contained an additional page, entitled “Allonge to Note,” which contained a special indorsement from the original lender to the plaintiff. However, … the plaintiff did not submit any evidence to establish that the purported allonge was so firmly affixed to the note as to become a part thereof (see UCC 3-202[2] …). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Maleno-Fowler, 2021 NY Slip Op 03344, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS CAUSED THE INJURY TO PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert raised questions of fact about whether exposure to asbestos injured plaintiff:

“In toxic tort cases, an expert opinion on causation must set forth (1) a plaintiff’s exposure to a toxin, (2) that the toxin is capable of causing the particular injuries plaintiff suffered ](general causation) and (3) that the plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause such injuries (specific causation)” … . “[T]here must be evidence from which the factfinder can conclude that the plaintiff was exposed to levels of the agent that are known to cause the kind of harm that the plaintiff claims to have suffered” … . “[I]t is not always necessary for a plaintiff to quantify exposure levels precisely or use the dose-response relationship, provided that whatever methods an expert uses to establish causation are generally accepted in the scientific community” … .

… [T]he plaintiffs submitted expert affidavits raising triable issues of fact as to both general and specific causation … . The conclusions of the plaintiffs’ experts were sufficiently supported by studies and medical literature, and demonstrated specific causation through a scientific method … . The experts’ conflicting interpretations of the underlying studies and literature presented a credibility battle between the parties’ experts, which is properly left to a jury for its resolution … . Pistone v American Biltrite, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03341, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW THE COMPLAINANT WAS A 14-YEAR-OLD RUNAWAY WHEN SHE STAYED AT HIS HOUSE; THE EVIDENCE OF KIDNAPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s kidnapping conviction, determined the evidence was legally insufficient:

“A person is guilty of kidnapping in the second degree when he or she] abducts another person” … . “‘Abduct’ means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his [or her] liberation by . . . (a) secreting or holding him [or her] in a place where he [or she] is not likely to be found” … . “‘Restrain’ means to restrict a person’s movements intentionally and unlawfully in such [a] manner as to interfere substantially with his [or her] liberty by moving him [or her] from one place to another, or by confining him [or her] either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he [or she] has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful”… . “A person is so moved or confined ‘without consent’ when such is accomplished by . . . any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he [or she] is a child less than sixteen years old . . . and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him [or her] has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement” … .  [T]he evidence does not establish that the defendant had “knowledge that the restriction [of the complainant’s movements was] unlawful” … , as the record fails to establish that the defendant knew that the complainant was under the age of 16 or that he knew she had run away and that her parents were looking for her, during a period of three days to one week that she was staying at his house … . Moreover, the evidence also failed to establish that the defendant intentionally restricted the complainant’s movements by confining her … , or that he intended to prevent her liberation by “secreting or holding [her] in a place where [she was] not likely to be found” … . Without establishing that the defendant knew that the complainant was a 14-year-old runaway, the People failed to establish that the defendant possessed the requisite intent to restrict her movements by confining her, or to prevent her liberation by keeping her hidden from her parents in a place where she was unlikely to be found. People v Legrand, 2021 NY Slip Op 03333, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE TWO CHILDREN IN ITS PLACEMENT DECISION; STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined Family Court properly considered the best interests of two children in deciding where the children should be place. The dissent disagreed. The decision is too detailed and fact-specific to fairly summarize here:

At its essence, this appeal presents a circumstance where everyone involved—the foster mother, the godmother, the attorney for the child, ACS, and the Family Court—agreed that the child and his half-sibling should be kept together. The court found that both the godmother’s home and the foster mother’s home were entirely suitable, but in choosing between the two, properly noted that the half-sibling’s father did not consent to the half-sibling being placed anywhere except with the godmother. The court’s consideration of that fact did not mean that the child’s best interests were not globally considered, but was instead a relevant and necessary fact that the court needed to take into account in determining how to best promote the child’s best interests and the obvious benefit to him of keeping the two half-siblings together as each other’s sole living, known, biological relatives. It was not error for the court to do so, and in fact, the court would have been derelict in its duties had it failed to do so. Matter of Adonnis M. (Kenyetta M.), 2021 NY Slip Op 03322, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S THEORY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY MEDICAL LITERATURE, THE THEORY HAD AN OBJECTIVE BASIS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED AFTER A FRYE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence offered by plaintiff’s treating physician (Paget) as expert opinion should not have been precluded after a Frye hearing, despite the absence of medical literature on the topic. Plaintiff alleged a contrast agent was negligently injected into the tissue of her arm instead of a vein:

The plaintiff’s expert witness disclosure indicated that Paget was expected to testify that the defendants deviated from good and accepted medical practice in allowing gadolinium, a toxin, to leak into and remain inside the plaintiff’s arm in high concentration, which caused the plaintiff to develop injuries including a progressive fibrosing disease. … * * *

Although Paget did not rely upon medical literature unequivocally establishing that the administration of gadolinium into tissue has a causal link to the development of a systemic fibrosing disease in the absence of renal insufficiency, the plaintiff established that Paget’s theory “had an objective basis and was founded upon far more than theoretical speculation or a scientific hunch”… . The absence of medical literature directly on point pertains to the weight to be afforded to Paget’s testimony, but does not preclude its admissibility … . Farrell v Lichtenberger, 2021 NY Slip Op 03305, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS INVALID BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE AND THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQURY; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL MISCHIEF AND AUTO STRIPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the waiver of defendant’s right to counsel was invalid and the evidence of criminal mischief and auto stripping was legally insufficient, and the convictions were against the weight of the evidence:

Defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was invalid, because the record “does not sufficiently demonstrate that defendant was aware of his actual sentencing exposure” … . “The critical consideration is defendant’s knowledge at the point in time when he first waived his right to counsel”; the court’s subsequent warnings about sentencing “were incapable of retrospectively ‘curing’ the . . . court’s error” … . Moreover, the court “improperly granted defendant’s request to proceed pro se without first conducting a searching inquiry regarding defendant’s mental capacity to waive counsel” … , in light of his history of mental illness, as well as his statement, in response to the court’s reference to the “tremendous pitfalls of representing yourself,” that “[n]one of that has been explained,” even after the court had warned him of a number of such risks.

Defendant’s conviction of third-degree criminal mischief as to one of the vehicles he damaged (count four), and his conviction of first-degree auto stripping, were unsupported by legally sufficient evidence (a claim we review in the interest of justice), and were also against the weight of the evidence … . The People failed to establish that particular charge of criminal mischief because the evidence did not show that “the reasonable cost of repairing the damaged property” … . Such costs “may not be established by hearsay”… . The People relied on a nonexpert witness who was not the owner of the vehicle and did not pay for the repairs, but testified that he looked at a receipt and that the repair costs were $600 … , and the People do not invoke any exception to the hearsay rule. In the absence of admissible evidence as to the repair costs for that vehicle, the People also failed to establish that the aggregate damage to all the vehicles exceeded $3,000, the minimum value for first-degree auto stripping … . People v Jackson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03288, First Dept 5-25-21

 

, ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE CORRECT STANDARD TO APPLY TO THE CANINE SNIFF OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON WAS REASONABLE SUSPICION, NOT PROBABLE CAUSE; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurrence and a dissent, determined the canine sniff after a traffic stop was justified by reasonable suspicion. The concurrence argued the court could not reach the proper standard for the canine sniff because the motion court did not rule on it. The dissent argued the probable cause standard should apply:

Defendant correctly asserts that the canine’s contact sniff of his person intruded upon his personal privacy as secured under both the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and article 1, § 12 of the NY Constitution … . The question presented is whether the search ran afoul of either constitutional provision and what standard applies to make that assessment — an issue of first impression for this Court.

Considering the context of a vehicle traffic stop and how events unfolded, we conclude that a reasonable suspicion standard should apply, not one of probable cause … . A canine sniff is a minimal intrusion compared to a full-blown search of a person, intended only to detect the possession of narcotics … . Without prompting from [officer] Bracco, the canine twice was “in odor” of its own accord, providing a reasonable and articulable basis for Bracco to suspect that defendant possessed narcotics on his person. Given the necessity for prompt action, it was not unreasonable for Bracco to allow the canine to approach defendant. There was contact between the canine and defendant’s person, but the record suggests that contact was brief and the canine quickly alerted. In these circumstances, we conclude that the search was valid and the suppression motion properly denied. People v Butler, 2021 NY Slip Op 03222, Third Dept 5-20-21

 

, , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).

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

Although the plaintiff submitted copies of the 90-day notices purportedly sent to [defendant] Jimenez, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the notices were actually mailed, either through an affidavit of service, other proof of mailing by the post office, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure … . The unsubstantiated and conclusory assertion in an affidavit of a representative of the plaintiff’s loan servicer that the 90-day notice was sent in accordance with RPAPL 1304 is insufficient to establish that the notice was actually mailed to Jimenez by first-class and certified mail … . Moreover, the affiant based her assertions upon her review of unspecified business records without attaching any such business records to her affidavit … . “It is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … .

Similarly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it complied with the notice of default provisions of the consolidated mortgage, which required the plaintiff to send a notice of default to Jimenez at the notice address by first-class mail and to provide a 30-day cure period. Copies of the notice without proof of mailing, along with the affidavit of a representative of the loan servicer averring, based upon her review of unspecified business records which were not attached to the affidavit, that such a notice of default was sent on an unspecified date, was insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden … .  Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Jimenez, 2021 NY Slip Op 03212, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

,

PROOF OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ default in this foreclosure action was not demonstrated because the relevant business were described but not submitted. The description was therefore hearsay:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted copies of the note and mortgage, and an affidavit of Sherry Benight, an officer of Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (hereinafter SPS), the servicer for the loan. Based on her review of business records in the possession of SPS, Benight averred that the defendants defaulted in payment in August 2014. However, the only business records annexed to and incorporated in the affidavit with regard to the default was a notice of default dated March 3, 2015 … . Although Benight established that she was familiar with SPS’s record-keeping practices and procedures, no payment records were proffered with the motion. “‘[W]hile 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'” … . “[I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Rowe, 2021 NY Slip Op 03209, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

,

THE POLICE WERE JUSTIFIED IN STOPPING A BICYCLIST WHO WAS WEAVING AND HOLDING A BULKY OBJECT IN HIS WAISTBAND; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress a gun and statements based upon a street stop. The court noted that defendant was riding a bicycle and the street stop rules which apply to pedestrians, not vehicles, apply:

The Court of Appeals has held that an officer’s instruction to a pedestrian to “stop” requires only a common-law right of inquiry and does not constitute a seizure … . …

… Supreme Court properly determined that the officer’s statements to the defendant to “hold up” constituted a level two encounter under De Bour, and that the officers were justified in making a common-law inquiry based upon their observations of the manner in which the defendant was riding his bicycle, as well as their observation of a “bulky” object that the defendant was holding at his waistband … .

… [T]he defendant stopped in response to the commands and … the officers did not block his path or otherwise signal that he was not free to leave … . The unobtrusive manner in which the police followed the defendant did not elevate the pursuit itself to a seizure … .

The officers were justified in frisking the defendant based on Officer Schnell’s observation of the bulky object in the defendant’s waistband together with the defendant’s statements that he had a gun … . People v Rodriguez, 2021 NY Slip Op 03202, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

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