You are here: / Evidence
, ,

DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND RECANTATION TESTIMONY TO WARRANT A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. The defendant presented sufficient evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence (recantation testimony), as well as evidence of actual innocence, to warrant a hearing on all three issues:

Defendant avers, in his sworn affidavit, that he repeatedly advised his trial counsel that the victim’s allegation that defendant did not live with her at the time of the incident was false and that this false claim could be easily disproven, but trial counsel “was not interested and did nothing.” Defendant supported this claim with four sworn affidavits of witnesses who all stated that defendant lived with the victim at the time of the incident. These affidavits were not merely conclusory, but rather contained factual allegations based upon firsthand observations by the witnesses … . * * *

… [D]efendant proffered three separate affidavits from witnesses, as well as text messages purportedly from the victim, asserting that they established that the victim had fabricated the allegations against him. * * *

Although we are mindful that recantation testimony is “inherently unreliable” … , the “totality of the circumstances” presented here demonstrates that a hearing is required to scrutinize the circumstances regarding the recantations as well as the credibility of the witnesses, and to create a record … . People v Stetin, 2021 NY Slip Op 01529, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

,

THE POLICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LAWFUL BASIS FOR IMPOUNDING DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AND CONDUCTING AN INVENTORY SEARCH; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle should have been granted. The police did not demonstrate a lawful bas for impounding the vehicle and conducting an inventory search:

… [T]he People failed to establish the lawfulness of the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle and subsequent inventory search … . Although, at the suppression hearing, a police officer testified that the defendant’s vehicle was “parked on the corner” at the time of the defendant’s arrest, there was no testimony that the vehicle was parked illegally or that there were any posted time limits pertaining to the space where the vehicle was parked. The People presented no evidence demonstrating any history of burglary or vandalism in the area where the defendant had parked his vehicle, and the officer testified that the vehicle was driven to the precinct because it was used in the commission of a crime. Thus, the People failed to establish that the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle was in the interests of public safety or part of the police’s community caretaking function … . Moreover, although the officer who performed the inventory search of the defendant’s vehicle testified that the policy for conducting such searches was located in the Patrol Guide, the People presented no evidence demonstrating the requirements of the policy for impounding and searching a vehicle, or whether the officer complied with that policy when she conducted the inventory search of the defendant’s vehicle … . People v Rivera, 2021 NY Slip Op 08256, Second Dept 3-17-21

 

, ,

THE BORROWER’S APPLICATION FOR A LOAN MODIFICATION DID NOT RELIEVE THE BANK OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined (1) the bank was still required to provide the RPAPL1304 notice despite the application for a loan modification, and (2) the proof of mailing the notice was insufficient. The court noted that proof of mailing submitted for the first time in reply cannot be considered as part of the bank’s prima facie case:

When the instant action was commenced, RPAPL 1304(3) provided: “The ninety day period specified in the notice[ ] contained in [RPAPL 1304(1)] shall not apply, or shall cease to apply, if the borrower has filed [an application for the adjustment of debts of the borrower or an order for relief from the payment of debts], or if the borrower no longer occupies the residence as the borrower’s principal dwelling” … . A loan modification was not an adjustment of debts within the meaning of the version of RPAPL 1304(3) then in effect and, in any event, a lender was relieved only from the requirement to provide notice within the “ninety day period” (RPAPL 1304[3]), not from the requirement to provide the notice specified in RPAPL 1304(1) … . …

US Bank failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Although Ubinas stated in her affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, of an envelope addressed to the defendant bearing a certified mail 20-digit barcode, and of an envelope bearing a first-class mail postage stamp, US Bank failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually occurred. There is no copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute. Further, while Ubinas attested that she had personal knowledge of the record-making practices of Ocwen, and that the 90-day notice was sent in compliance with RPAPL 1304, she did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the Law Offices of McCabe, Weisberg, and Conway, P.C., the entity that allegedly sent the notices to the defendant on behalf of Ocwen. On appeal, US Bank relies upon the signed certified mail return receipt submitted in reply. The moving party, however, cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Hammer, 2021 NY Slip Op 01439, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

,

THE COMPLAINT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION AT THE WORK SITE; THE DEFENDANTS IGNORED THAT THEORY IN THEIR MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOCUSED ON AN INAPPLICABLE THEORY (THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 200 action should not have been granted. There are two distinct theories which will support a Labor Law 200 cause of action. If the injury stems from the means and manner of the work, the defendant must have supervisory authority over the way the work is done. If the injury stems from a dangerous condition, the defendant must have control over the work site and must have created or had notice of the dangerous condition. Here plaintiff alleged a door at the work site was not adequately secured and he was injured when wind blew the door shut. The door therefore was alleged to constitute a dangerous condition. In their motion papers, however, the defendants addressed only the means-and-manner-of-work theory:

… [T]he plaintiff’s complaint and verified bill of particulars sounded almost entirely in premises liability, and alleged, inter alia, that the door was not properly constructed, placed, or secured, and that it lacked adequate securing devices. To establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants were obligated to address the proof applicable to the plaintiff’s dangerous condition theory of liability, or alternatively, to demonstrate, prima facie, that this case fell only within the ambit of the means and methods category of Labor Law § 200 cases … . On their motion, the defendants summarily concluded that the case exclusively implied a means and methods theory of liability, and contended that they only had general supervisory authority over the work site, which would be insufficient to impose liability for common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 in a means and methods case … . The defendants, however, failed to address premises liability and whether they either created the alleged dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it … . Rodriguez v HY 38 Owner, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01436, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not present sufficient evidence in support of their motion to change venue. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants, who were hired to paint newly-constructed residential property, did substandard work. Suit was brought in the county of plaintiffs’ residence and business, New York County. The defendants sought to change the venue to Suffolk County where the property is located and defendants reside:

Where venue has properly been designated by the plaintiff based on the residence of either party, a defendant seeking a change of venue under CPLR 510(3) must make a detailed evidentiary showing that the nonparty witnesses will, in fact, be inconvenienced absent such relief. The affidavit of the moving party under CPLR 510(3) must (1) contain the names, addresses, and occupations of witnesses expected to be called; (2) disclose the facts upon which such witnesses are expected to testify, in order that the court may determine whether such witnesses are material and necessary; (3) demonstrate that such witnesses are willing to testify; and (4) show that the witnesses would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue … …

… [D]efendants neglected to show with sufficient particularity the facts upon which nonparty McAulife is expected to testify. … Defendants did not submit an affidavit from McAulife, relying instead on counsel’s affirmation wherein he states that McAulife was “familiar with the work performed by defendants at 10 Two Trees Lane,” and “familiar with defendants in their business capacity.” Without further detail about when, where, and under what circumstances McAulife had occasion to become “familiar with the work,” defendants’ burden has not been met … . Defendants also fail to set forth McAulife’s name, address, and occupation, or how he would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue. The fact that the case involves work on a property located in Suffolk County does not justify an inversion of the burden of proof or relieve the moving party of its burden of establishing that the convenience of the nonparty witnesses would be served by a discretionary change of venue … . 10 Two Trees Lane LLC v Mahone, 2021 NY Slip Op 01371, First Dept 3-9-21

 

, , ,

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

 

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