You are here: / Evidence
, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not present sufficient evidence of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

[T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of April Simmons, an employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (hereinafter Nationstar), along with copies of two 90-day notices addressed to the defendant. Simmons, however, did not state in her affidavit that she personally mailed these notices to the defendant, and she did not aver that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the entity which sent the notices … . Moreover, although the envelopes accompanying the 90-day notices state “First-Class Mail” and contain a bar code above a 20-digit number, the plaintiff failed to submit any receipt or corresponding document proving that the notices were actually sent by first-class and certified mail to the defendant more than 90 days prior to the commencement of the action … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Zientek, 2021 NY Slip Op 02015, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate compliance RPAPL 1304 and therefore was not entitled to summary judgment:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, inter alia, an affidavit of Tewana Sheriff, a foreclosure administrator for the plaintiff’s servicer who, based upon review of “business records maintained for the purpose of servicing plaintiff’s mortgage loans,” averred that the 90-day notice was sent via first-class and certified mail in accordance with RPAPL 1304. Sheriff did not refer to any specific records demonstrating compliance with RPAPL 1304, did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the subject mailings, and did not set forth personal knowledge of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items were properly addressed and mailed. Although the plaintiff submitted a signed certified mail receipt and United States Postal Service tracking information, those items do not refer to a 90-day notice, and a copy of the 90-day notice does not include a United States Postal Service tracking number corresponding with the certified mail receipt … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to, inter alia, submit any proof of mailing the 90-day notice by first-class mail. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants, to strike their answer, and for an order of reference … . Santander Bank, N.A. v Schaefer, 2021 NY Slip Op 02005, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF, AN EXTERMINATOR, WAS IN THE ATTIC OF DEFENDANT’S HOUSE; THE ATTIC HAD NO FLOOR AND THE PLAINTIFF WALKED ON THE BEAMS OR JOISTS; THE PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE STEPPED ON A SMALLER PIECE OF WOOD LYING ACROSS THE BEAMS, IT GAVE WAY AND HIS LEG WENT THROUGH THE CEILING; THE 2ND DEPARTMENT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, DETERMINED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE SMALLER BOARD WAS A LATENT DEFECT OR THAT DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE OF ANY DEFECT, SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the plaintiff’s verdict and dismiss the complaint should have been granted. Plaintiff, an exterminator, went into defendant’s attic which apparent had no floor, only the beams or joists. Plaintiff testified that there were some smaller boards lying across the joints. According to the plaintiff, when he stepped on one of the smaller boards it gave way and his leg went through the ceiling:

“[T]he issue of whether a hazard is latent or open and obvious is generally fact-specific and thus usually a jury question” … . However, in order to meet his prima facie burden of proof at trial, the plaintiff was required to submit sufficient evidence to enable the jury to decide this critical issue in a logical manner, based on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, rather than through sheer speculation or guesswork … . Here, the evidence showed that the main beams were part of the structure of the house, but the function of the smaller pieces of wood was never really made clear, except that the plaintiff offered that they may have been intended to hold the insulation in place. In fact, the jury heard next to nothing about the smaller piece of wood that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. There were no pictures of it, no testimony regarding its dimensions, no evidence as to whether such a smaller piece of wood would ordinarily be safe to walk on, no evidence as to whether the smaller piece of wood even appeared reasonably safe to walk on, and no evidence that the smaller piece of wood was in a rotted, deteriorated, or otherwise unsafe condition, other than the plaintiff’s testimony that it looked “discolored” and “pretty damp.”

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and affording him every favorable inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, there was simply no rational basis upon which the jury could determine, without speculating, that the smaller piece of wood that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall constituted a latent hazard due to its alleged rotted condition … . Saintume v Lamattina, 2021 NY Slip Op 02004, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

,

IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROOF OF A GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION POLICY DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Evidence of a general cleaning and inspection policy does not demonstrate the lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition:

The defendant also failed to show, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the condition that the plaintiff alleged caused her to fall. “To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the 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” … . Although the defendant submitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of the individual who was the managing partner of the restaurant at the time of the accident, the manager testified only as to the restaurant’s general cleaning and inspection policy and not about any inspections that may have occurred prior to the plaintiff’s fall. Piotrowski v Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02000, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

,

BASED UPON THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THE IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE STATUTORY-RAPE COMPLAINANT TO DETERMINE THE RELEVANCE OF HER PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY (A MATERIAL STAGE OF THIS PROCEEDING); DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT FOR WHICH NO 710.30 NOTICE WAS PROVIDED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF INTENT, MOTIVE, OR LACK OF MISTAKE WAS NOT RELEVANT TO STATUTORY RAPE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined: (1) based upon his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, the defendant should have been present during the judge’s in camera interview with the complainant in this statutory rape case to determine the relevance of her psychiatric history (a material stage of this proceeding); (2) the defendant’s statement for which no CPL 710.30 notice was provided should not have been admitted on that ground; and (3) that same statement should not have been admitted as “Molineux” evidence of intent, motive or lack of mistake because such evidence is not relevant to statutory rape:

The right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him or her through cross-examination is a fundamental right of constitutional dimension … . The right of cross-examination is an essential safeguard of fact-finding accuracy and “the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested” … .

Where a primary prosecution witness is shown to suffer from a psychiatric condition, the defense is entitled to show that the witness’s capacity to perceive and recall events was impaired by that condition … .

In this case, the defendant’s absence during the Supreme Court’s in camera interview with the complainant to determine if her psychiatric history was relevant had a substantial effect on his ability to defend the charges against him, and thus, the interview constituted a material stage of the trial for which the defendant should have been present … . Where, as here, the “defendant was absent during a material part of his trial, harmless error analysis is not appropriate,” and a new trial is required … . Moreover, while the scope of cross-examination generally rests within the trial court’s discretion … , here, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in striking the complainant’s testimony adduced during cross-examination with respect to her psychiatric history. People v King, 2021 NY Slip Op 01996, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT PROCURED THE ABSENCE OF A WITNESS; THEREFORE THE WITNESS’S STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO MAKE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AFTER THE DEFENSE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined a witness’s out-of-count statement should not have been admitted because the People did not demonstrate defendant procured the witness’s absence and the failure to follow proper procedure in jury selection was reversible error:

“The purpose of a Sirois hearing is to determine whether the defendant has procured a witness’s absence or unavailability through his own misconduct, and thereby forfeited any hearsay or Confrontation Clause objections to admitting the witness’s out-of-court statements” … . The People must “present legally sufficient evidence of circumstances and events from which a court may properly infer that the defendant, or those at defendant’s direction or acting with defendant’s knowing acquiescence, threatened the witness” … . “At a Sirois hearing, the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant has procured the witness’s absence or unavailability” … .

Here, the People failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was responsible for procuring a certain witness’s refusal to testify at trial … . Specifically, the People’s evidence did not establish that the defendant controlled the individuals who threatened the witness or that the defendant influenced or persuaded any individual to threaten the witness or his family … .

The Supreme Court committed reversible error when it permitted the People to exercise peremptory challenges to prospective jurors after the defendant and his codefendant exercised peremptory challenges to that same panel of prospective jurors (see CPL 270.15[2] … . This procedure violated “the one persistently protected and enunciated rule of jury selection—that the People make peremptory challenges first, and that they never be permitted to go back and challenge a juror accepted by the defense” … . People v Burgess, 2021 NY Slip Op 01993, Second Dept 3-31-21

The same peremptory challenge issue required reversal in People v Taylor, 2021 NY Slip Op 01998, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

, ,

THE FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINANT CONSENTED TO LYING DOWN IN BED WITH PETITIONER FOR THE NIGHT BUT DID NOT CONSENT TO HAVING SEX WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; THE COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED THE STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, annulling the determination of the Campus Appeals Board of SUNY Purchase College, held the Board’s conclusion petitioner had sexual intercourse with the complainant without the complainant’s consent was not supported by substantial evidence. The Board had found the evidence that complainant was unable to give consent “conflicting and unreliable:”

After the hearing, the Hearing Board found “the complainant’s statements to be conflicting and unreliable as it pertained to her inability to give consent.” The Hearing Board concluded that “[t]here were considerable gaps in the complainant’s memory,” and indicated that it was “concerned that some of her statements after her initial report were tainted by reading the reports that were submitted by other witnesses and parties.” Nevertheless, the Hearing Board found that although there was consent for lying together in bed, kissing, and the removal of the complainant’s pants, the complainant had not consented to the remainder of the sexual activity. …

… [T]he determination that the petitioner violated code C.8 was not supported by substantial evidence. Having rejected the complainant’s testimony that she was incapable of giving consent, the Hearing Board was not left with adequate evidence to support the conclusion that while the complainant consented to spending the night in the petitioner’s bed, kissing, and removing her pants, she did not consent to the remainder of the sexual activity. The Board indicated that its finding of nonconsensual conduct was based on the statements of the petitioner and the complainant “that clear, affirmative consent for these activities was not given.” However, the petitioner, while freely admitting that he did not obtain verbal consent, clearly asserted that the complainant consented with her actions … . Matter of Doe v Purchase Coll. State Univ. of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 01974, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

,

THE DRIVER BEING VISIBLY NERVOUS, COUPLED WITH THE VEHICLE HAVING OUT-OF-STATE PLATES AND BEING IN A HIGH CRIME AREA, DID NOT PROVIDE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINALITY; THEREFORE THE POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASKING WHETHER THERE WERE ANY WEAPONS IN THE CAR, A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of attempted criminal possession of a weapon and dismissing the indictment, determined the police officer did not have a founded suspicion of criminality when he asked whether any weapons were in the vehicle:

Defendant was a passenger in a car, bearing a Massachusetts license plate, that was stopped for driving through a red light in a “high crime” neighborhood. The driver of the car complied with the demands of one of the officers for his driver’s license and that he get out of the car, but was “visibly nervous,” breathing heavily, and stammering in his responses to the officer’s questions. Moments later, one of the other officers asked whether there were any weapons in the car. This ultimately led to the recovery of a pistol from defendant.

These circumstances did not give rise to the founded suspicion of criminality that was required to authorize this level two inquiry … . Contrary to the People’s contention, neither occurrence of the stop for a traffic violation in a “high crime” area, nor the unproven perception of one of the officers that in general out-of-state license plates are more highly correlated with criminality than New York license plates, elevated the suspicion to the level required to authorize a common-law inquiry. People v Jonathas, 2021 NY Slip Op 01954, First Dept 3-30-21

 

, ,

WHERE THE BANK ATTEMPTS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIRMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WITH PROOF OF THE STANDARD OFFICE MAILING PROCEDURE, A DEFENDANT BORROWER MAY REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER MAILING AND RECEIPT WITH PROOF OF A MATERIAL DEVIATION FROM THE BANK’S MAILING PROCEDURE; WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE BORROWERS, THE BANK NEED ONLY NAME ONE IN THE ELECTRONIC FILING REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1306 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a concurring opinion, answering two certified questions from the Second Circuit, determined: (1) where, in an action for foreclosure, the bank attempts to demonstrate compliance with the mailing and notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 with proof of the standard office mailing procedure, a defendant borrower can rebut the presumption of proper mailing and receipt with proof of a material deviation from the bank’s mailing procedure; and (2) where there are multiple borrowers, the bank need only provide information about one borrower in the bank’s electronic filing required by RPAL 1306. Here the defendants alleged there was a material deviation from the bank’s mailing procedure because the bank averred the envelopes for the RPAPL 1304 notice are “created upon default,” but the notices were dated almost a year after the initial payment default. The Court of Appeals expressed no opinion whether the “nearly one-year gap” was a material deviation from the bank’s mailing procedure such that the presumption of proper mailing and receipt was rebutted. The court noted the borrowers’ claim they never received the notice is not, standing alone, sufficient to rebut the presumption:

What is necessary to rebut the presumption that a RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed will depend, in part, on the nature of the practices detailed in the affidavit. Moreover, contextual considerations may also factor into the analysis. For example, here, [the bank] points out that residential notes and mortgages are negotiable instruments that often change hands at various points during their duration, which may impact the timing of the creation and mailing of RPAPL 1304 notices—a contextual factor a court could consider in assessing whether a purported deviation from routine procedure was material. We reject defendants’ argument that a single deviation from any aspect of the routine office procedure necessarily rebuts the presumption of mailing. Such a standard would undermine the purpose of the presumption because, in practice, it would require entities to retain actual proof of mailing for every document that could be potentially relevant in a future lawsuit. CIT Bank N.A. v Schiffman, 2021 NY Slip Op 01933, CtApp 3-30-21

 

,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE FIREARM BEFORE FORMING THE INTENT TO SHOOT; THE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SENTENCE MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCES FOR THE SHOOTING-RELATED OFFENSES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, directing that the sentences run concurrently, noted there was no evidence defendant possessed the loaded firearm before he formed the intent to shoot the victim:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of three counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [1], [4]), two counts each of burglary in the first degree (§ 140.30 [2], [4]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [3]), and one count each of assault in the first degree (§ 120.10 [4]), attempted murder in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (§ 165.45 [5]). … . * * *

Where a defendant is charged with both criminal possession of a weapon in violation of Penal Law § 265.03 (3) and a different crime that has an element involving the use of that weapon, consecutive sentencing is permissible if “[the] defendant knowingly unlawfully possesses a loaded firearm before forming the intent to cause a crime with that weapon” such that the possessory crime has already been completed … . The People have the burden of establishing that consecutive sentences are legal, i.e., that the two crimes were committed through separate and distinct acts … . …

The People failed to meet their burden inasmuch as there are no facts alleged in the counts of the indictment to which defendant pleaded guilty or in the plea allocution that would establish that defendant possessed the loaded firearm prior to forming his intent to shoot the victim … or that the act of possessing the loaded firearm “was separate and distinct from” his act of shooting the victim … . People v Boyd, 2021 NY Slip Op 01897, Fourth Dept 3-26-21

 

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