You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

THE DEFAULT NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT BECAUSE IT DID NOT STATE THE DEBT WAS DUE AND PAYABLE IMMEDIATELY; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PROPER MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE (THIRD DEPT)

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action. The court held the action had never been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 because no 90-day notice requiring the filing of a note of issue had been given. The foreclosure action was timely because the letter which defendants argued had accelerated the debt did not unambiguously state that the full mortgage debt had become due and payable immediately. However proof of the mailing of the the RPAPL 1304 notice was not sufficient:

The December 28, 2009 letter advised Mausler [defendant] that he was in default and that he could cure this default by making a payment “within thirty days from the date of this letter.” The letter further stated that “[i]f you do not cure this default within the specified time period, your obligation for payment of the entire unpaid balance of the loan will be accelerated and become due and payable immediately” … . Additionally, the letter provided that if the amount due was not paid, “foreclosure proceedings may commence to acquire the [p]roperty by foreclosure and sale” … . The Court of Appeals, however, recently explained that such language does not evince an intent by the noteholder to “seek immediate payment of the entire, outstanding loan, but referred to acceleration only as a future event”… . Accordingly, contrary to defendants’ contention, the December 2009 letter did not constitute a valid acceleration of the debt so as to trigger the applicable statute of limitations. …

Plaintiff relies on the affidavit from the loan servicing associate to demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304. The associate, however, “did not attest to familiarity with or provide any proof of the mailing procedures utilized by the party that allegedly mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice” … . Wilmington Trust, Natl. Assn. v Mausler, 2021 NY Slip Op 01296, Third Dept 3-4-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defendants’ verdict in this slip and fall case, determined plaintiff’s expert should have been allowed to testify:

The plaintiff Wendy Robins (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) fell after stepping onto a curb adjacent to an unfinished driveway apron leading to an underground parking garage in a condominium building that was under construction … . …

“[E]xpert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror” … . The admissibility and scope of expert testimony is a determination within the discretion of the trial court … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding the testimony of the plaintiffs’ proposed expert witness as to industry safety standards relating to the construction of sidewalks … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the record shows no appreciable difference between the unfinished driveway apron where the injured plaintiff fell, which was left open to pedestrians, and the adjoining unfinished sidewalks, which were barricaded by a fence and barrels. Moreover, the absence of a violation of a specific code or ordinance is not dispositive of the plaintiffs’ allegations based on common-law negligence principles … . Had the plaintiffs’ expert been permitted to testify, he could have addressed whether, under the circumstances presented, the defendants’ failure to barricade the driveway apron or otherwise warn pedestrians of its unfinished condition was a departure from generally accepted customs and practices and whether the defendants were negligent in failing to do so … . Robins v City of Long Beach, 2021 NY Slip Op 01277, Second Dept 3-3-21​

 

, , ,

THE DEFENSE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO OFFER A SPECULATIVE CONCLUSION ABOUT HOW PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD; PLANTIFF ALLEGED THE STEP STOOL SHE WAS STANDING ON COLLAPSED; THE DEFENSE EXPERT TESTIFIED SHE COULD HAVE FALLEN ONTO THE STOOL; THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the verdict in this products liability case should have been set aside. Plaintiff alleged she was injured when a step stool collapsed as she stood on it. The defendant’s expert testified she could have fallen onto the stool. There was no evidence in the record to support the expert’s opinion, which was objected to by plaintiff. The defense verdict, therefore, should have been set aside:

Following the accident, one of the injured plaintiff’s coworkers discarded the step stool in the trash. At the trial on the issue of liability, the defendant’s expert testified, over the plaintiffs’ objection, that the injured plaintiff’s accident may have occurred because she slipped and fell onto the step stool. Over the plaintiffs’ objection, the jury was asked the question: “Did the subject step stool collapse under the [injured] plaintiff while she was standing on it on October 22, 2013, causing the [injured] plaintiff’s accident?” The jury answered “No,” thereby finding in favor of the defendant on the ground that the accident did not occur as the injured plaintiff said it did. * * *

We agree with the plaintiffs that the evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of whether the subject step stool collapsed as the injured plaintiff stood on it causing her accident, that the jury could not have reached the verdict it did by any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Moreover, the testimony of the defendant’s expert that the accident may have happened because the injured plaintiff fell onto the step stool was speculative, lacked support in the record, and should not have been admitted in evidence … . Montesione v Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 01253, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION OUTSIDE THE EXPERT’S FIELD AND DID NOT REBUT THE OPINIONS OF DEFENDANT’S EXPERT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not raise a question of fact because there was no foundation for the expert’s opining outside the expert’s field of emergency medicine:

The affirmation of the plaintiff’s expert, a physician with training in emergency medicine, lacked probative value as it failed to specify that the expert had any specific training or expertise in neurology or in the diagnosis and treatment of strokes, or how she became familiar with the applicable standards of care … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s expert failed to rebut the opinions of the defendant’s expert or articulate how the defendant’s alleged deviations from the accepted standard of care were a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . Laughtman v Long Is. Jewish Val. Stream, 2021 NY Slip Op 01251, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF HUSBAND IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION INSTALLED SPYWARE WHICH INTERCEPTED DEFENDANT WIFE’S PHONE CALLS AND THEN DESTROYED THE CONTENTS OF THE INTERCEPTION; THE INTERCEPTION VIOLATED DEFENDANT WIFE’S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY INCLUDED STRIKING THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff husband in this divorce action was properly sanctioned for spoliation of evidence by striking from the complaint the causes of action seeking spousal support, equitable distribution and attorney’s fees. The husband had installed spyware which allowed interception of defendant wife’s phone calls. Evidence of what was intercepted was destroyed. It was assumed that the interceptions violated defendant wife’s attorney-client privilege:

… Supreme Court properly drew the presumption of relevance in connection with the interception by the plaintiff of privileged communications between the defendant and her attorney in view of the plaintiff’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about it at his deposition, his intentional destruction of electronic records, and the evidence that he had utilized spyware to record the defendant’s conversations when she was in the vicinity of her attorney’s office. Although this presumption is rebuttable … the plaintiff did not provide any evidence to rebut it. Further, while the striking of pleadings is a drastic remedy, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in striking the causes of action in the plaintiff’s complaint seeking financial relief other than child support. “Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, a party may be sanctioned where it negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence” … . … ” …  Where appropriate, a court can impose the ultimate sanction of dismissing the action or striking responsive pleadings, thereby rendering a judgment by default against the offending party” … . C.C. v A.R., 2021 NY Slip Op 01243, Second Dept 3-3-21

 

,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS MADE PURSUANT TO CPL 220.60, NOT CPL 330.30; THEREFORE THE “OUTSIDE THE RECORD” EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing County Court and remitting the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, determined defendant’s motion was made pursuant to CPL 220.60, not CPL 330.30. Therefore the evidence submitted by the defendant demonstrating his innocence of the charged crime could properly be considered. County Court had not considered the motion because the supporting evidence was outside the record:

The defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was clearly made pursuant to CPL 220.60(3), and the County Court should not have deemed it to be a motion to set aside a verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30(1). CPL 220.60(3) provides that “[a]t any time before the imposition of sentence, the court in its discretion may permit a defendant who has entered a plea of guilty . . . to withdraw such plea, and in such event the entire indictment, as it existed at the time of such plea, is restored” … . “The decision as to whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion” … . In general, “such a motion must be premised upon some evidence of possible innocence or of fraud, mistake, coercion or involuntariness in the taking of the plea” … . “When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry ‘rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made’ and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” … .

Here, the County Court, improperly relying upon CPL 330.30(1), determined that the defendant’s submissions in connection with his motion to withdraw his plea were outside the record and did not consider them. People v Murphy, 2021 NY Slip Op 08203, Second Dept 2-24-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH FATHER WAS CULPABLE IN THE SEVERE BEATING BY MOTHER AND THE SUBSEQUENT DEATH OF THE CHILD, THE SEVERE ABUSE STATUTE APPLIES ONLY TO “PARENTS” AS OPPOSED TO “PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE;” BECAUSE FATHER WAS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF THE CHILD BEATEN BY MOTHER, THE SEVERE ABUSE ADJUDICATION WAS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

ON FEBRUARY 23, 2021, THIS OPINION WAS VACATED AND THE SEVERE ABUSE FINDINGS AGAINST FATHER WERE UPHELD FOR ALL FOUR CHILDREN, NOT JUST FATHER’S BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN. REVISED DECISION-SUMMARY TO FOLLOW.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, reversing the severe abuse and derivative severe abuse adjudications against the father regarding mother’s biological children, otherwise affirmed the abuse and severe abuse and derivative abuse and derivative severe abuse adjudications, The severe abuse statute, unlike the abuse statute, permits only a finding against a parent (as opposed to a person legally responsible for the child). Because father was not the biological father of the child who died after a severe beating by mother, the severe abuse statute did not apply:

… [W]ith respect to Family Court’s determination that the father severely abused the deceased child and derivatively severely abused the older daughter and the older son, we are reluctantly constrained to reverse said findings. As this Court has previously made clear, and as petitioner and the attorney for the child concede, unlike findings of abuse and neglect, which may be made against “any parent or other person legally responsible for a child’s care” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [a] …), the current statutory language contained in Social Services Law § 384-b (8) (a) (i) only permits a finding of severe abuse to be made against a child’s “parent” … . Although we are satisfied that the evidence at the fact-finding hearing demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father’s failure to intervene to stop the brutal beating of the deceased child or thereafter take any action to provide her with life-saving medical care would otherwise satisfy the elements of severe abuse as against her … and, consequently, derivative severe abuse as against the older daughter and the older son … , because he is not the biological father of these children, Family Court was statutorily precluded from rendering such findings and we, therefore, are constrained to reverse same … . Matter of Lazeria F. (Paris H.), 2021 NY Slip Op 01096, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

,

THE CHILD’S STATEMENTS ABOUT SEXUAL TOUCHING WERE ADEQUATELY CORROBORATED AND FATHER’S EXPLANATION FOR THE TOUCHING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence supported sexual abuse and neglect by respondent-father. The child’s statements were sufficiently corroborated and the father’s explanation for touching the child was not credible:

… [T]he proof of the child’s consistent descriptions of the inappropriate touching to various individuals, the child’s dramatic change in behavior, the reenactment of the touching through sand and play therapy and respondent’s admissions satisfied the relatively low threshold of corroboration … . Matter of Lily BB. (Stephen BB.), 021 NY Slip Op 01106, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEAVING AN ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD BOY UNSUPERVISED CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE; THE BOY, WHO WAS VISITING HIS 13-YEAR-OLD FRIEND’S HOME, WAS SEVERELY INJURED ATTEMPTING TO DO A FLIP OFF A PICNIC TABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined whether defendant was negligent in leaving an eleven-year-old boy unsupervised for six hours is a question of fact. School had been cancelled because of snow and defendant went to work. The boy was severely injured when he attempted to do a flip off a picnic table in the backyard:

“The adequacy of supervision and proximate cause are generally issues of fact for the jury” …. It is undisputed that the child was left unattended without any adult supervision for approximately six hours. Although some may argue that it is not unreasonable to leave a child his age unsupervised to allow a parent to go to work, there is no bright line test with regard to age, and we are loathe to impose same. When viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, a question of fact exists as to whether Beadle exercised reasonable supervision of the 11-year-old child. As to proximate cause, we discern no reason under the facts here to deviate from the general rule that proximate cause is a jury question … . Justin M. v Beadle, 021 NY Slip Op 01108, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO INVESTIGATE FOUR WITNESSES WHO MAY HAVE CALLED INTO QUESTION THE EYEWITNESS’S ABILITY TO SEE THE SHOOTING AND THE DEFENDANT’S WHEREABOUTS AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, after a hearing, should have been granted on ineffective assistance grounds. Defense counsel was aware of three witnesses who called into question whether the eyewitness to the shooting was outside where she could have seen the shooting, or inside where she could not. In addition defense counsel was aware of an alibi witness. Defense counsel did not sufficiently investigate these witnesses:

… [T]he case against defendant centered, in part, upon the identification of him as the shooter by the eyewitness. The witnesses identified in the letter sent by the People would have cast further doubt on the eyewitness’ identification testimony, as well as whether she could have even seen the shooting. Yet, the record reflects that counsel made little efforts to reach out to these witnesses and minimal follow-up efforts.

Defendant also argues that he received ineffective assistance due to counsel’s failure to investigate an alibi witness. At the hearing, defendant’s uncle testified that defendant was with him in a house at the time of the shooting and that they were nowhere near the area where the shooting occurred. The uncle further stated that he was willing to testify at trial and left numerous voice messages for defendant’s counsel. Defendant’s counsel testified that she did not receive any voice messages from the uncle but recalled that the uncle would be an alibi witness. Other than stating in a conclusory manner that she was unable to locate the uncle, the record fails to show diligent attempts by counsel to reach him. The uncle’s testimony would have bolstered the defense by providing the jury with conflicting evidence as to defendant’s whereabouts at the time of the shooting. In our view, the failure to investigate this potential alibi defense and the witnesses who would have refuted the eyewitness’ location at the time of the shooting cannot be considered a reasonable trial strategy … . People v Lanier, 2021 NY Slip Op 01094, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

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