You are here: / Evidence
,

EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT ARGUED HE NEVER HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON FOUND IN ANOTHER’S HOUSE, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE “INVOLUNTARY POSSESSION” JURY INSTRUCTION; POSSESSION, EITHER ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE, IS NOT VOLUNTARY IF IT IS FOR SO BRIEF A PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE TERMINATED POSSESSION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined there was a reasonable view of the evidence which supported a jury instruction on voluntary (involuntary) possession of a weapon. In addition to actual and constructive possession, there is the concept of involuntary possession. Both actual and constructive possession can be involuntary if it is so fleeting that the defendant was not able to terminate possession. Defendant argued he was a guest for the night in the house where the weapon was found and did not possess it all, either actually or constructively. The Court of Appeals noted that “involuntary possession” conflicted with “no possession at all,” but the jury still should have been instructed on involuntary possession because there was evidence to support the instruction:

The distinction among constructive, knowing, and voluntary possession that defendant emphasizes is reflected in the Criminal Jury Instructions’ model charge on voluntary possession, which provides that “[p]ossession . . . is voluntary when the possessor was aware of [their] physical possession or control . . . for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate the possession” (CJI2d [NY] Voluntary Possession § 15.00 [2] … . * * *

… [T]he trial court denied the charge here, not because the requested charge lacked evidentiary support, but because the court considered the proposed language more confusing than helpful. … . This determination was in error because the requested charge did not inject confusion into the instructions. Rather, it addressed an entirely different aspect of the charged possessory crime: the temporal requirement of voluntary possession. Indeed, the requested charge would have clarified the law because the charge, as erroneously given, allowed the jury to conclude that if defendant had control over the area where the gun was found—i.e., the bedroom—then he had constructive possession of the gun, regardless of how long he was actually aware of its presence. This is not an accurate statement of the relevant law where, as here, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the possession may not have been voluntary. People v J.L., 2020 NY Slip Op 07663, CtApp 12-17-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. The judgment after trial was reversed:

… [T]he plaintiff relied upon the testimony of DeCaro [loan verification officer], who, when shown a copy of the 90-day notice, testified that the notice was printed on October 13, 2011, the same date that appears on the notice, that it was sent to the defendants at the subject property, and that such notice was maintained by Wells Fargo in the regular course of business as the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, DeCaro’s testimony was insufficient to demonstrate that it complied with RPAPL 1304. DeCaro did not testify that she had personal knowledge of the purported mailing or of Wells Fargo’s mailing practices, and did not describe the procedure by which the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed to the defendants by both certified mail and first-class mail … . Although the notice itself stated in bold print, “FIRST CLASS MAIL and CERTIFIED MAIL,” no receipt or corresponding document issued by the United States Postal Service was submitted proving that the notice was actually sent by certified mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. Moreover, the mailing manifest submitted by the plaintiff failed to establish that the notice was actually mailed to the defendants by both certified mail and first-class mail … .

Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing, “or proof 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 plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . US Bank N.A. v Pierre, 2020 NY Slip Op 07622, Second Dept 12-16-20

 

, ,

THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

The plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence establishing that the plaintiff or its counsel was in possession of the note at the time of commencement of the action. In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Howard R. Handville, a senior loan analyst at Ocwen Financial Corporation whose indirect subsidiary is Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Ocwen), the plaintiff’s loan servicer. Handville attested that he reviewed the servicing records maintained by Ocwen in its ordinary course of business, that prior servicers’ records were integrated into Ocwen’s records and relied upon by Ocwen and that “[b]ased on [his] review of the Servicing Records, the original Note and Mortgage for the Loan were physically delivered to Plaintiff’s custodian on April 25, 2007, prior to the commencement of this foreclosure action.” Handville further averred that “[s]ince that date, the original Note and Mortgage have remained in the physical possession of Plaintiff or its counsel.” Even if Handville’s affidavit was sufficient to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the “Servicing Records,” the affidavit was insufficient to establish standing because the records themselves were not submitted by the plaintiff. “‘[I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted’ … , and ‘a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay’ … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Schmelzinger, 2020 NY Slip Op 07543, Second Dept 12-16-20

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WERE COMPLIED WITH; SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 were not demonstrated and, therefore, the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing by either certified mail or first-class mail, “or proof 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” … , it failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Since the plaintiff failed to satisfy its prima facie burden with respect to RPAPL 1304, those branches of its 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 should have been denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers … . US Bank N.A. v McQueen, 2020 NY Slip Op 07423, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED SUPPRESSION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES; THE APPELLATE COURT IS POWERLESS TO REVIEW THAT ISSUE; THE APPELLATE COURT IS ALSO POWERLESS TO REVIEW THE SECOND GROUND FOR SUPPRESSION ARGUED BY THE PEOPLE ON APPEAL BECAUSE THAT SECOND ISSUE WAS RESOLVED BELOW IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; MATTER SENT BACK TO SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE SECOND ISSUE SHOULD THE PEOPLE BE SO ADVISED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined: (1) the motion court should not have decided the suppression motion on a ground not raised by the parties and the appellate court is powerless to review that issue (search valid pursuant to the automobile exception); (2) the other ground for upholding suppression argued by the People on appeal was decided in defendant’s favor and therefore the appellate court cannot review it (search valid as an inventory search). The denial of the suppression motion was reversed and the matter was sent back for review of the inventory search issue should the People be so advised:

The People’s current contention that the search of the defendant’s SUV was proper under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because the police had probable cause to believe that the SUV contained a weapon is improperly raised for the first time on appeal … . … [T]he hearing record reveals … the People were relying solely on the theory that the gun was recovered pursuant to a lawful inventory search after the SUV was removed from the location. This Court “cannot uphold conduct of the police, and thereby affirm a trial court’s denial of suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to such conduct, on a factual theory not argued by the People before the trial court” … . …

As an alternative ground for upholding the suppression ruling, the People argue, as they did in the Supreme Court, that the recovery of the gun was lawful pursuant to a valid inventory search. However, because the Supreme Court decided the inventory search issue in the defendant’s favor, this Court is precluded from reviewing that issue on the defendant’s appeal … . …  Under the circumstances presented here, where we lack statutory authority to review an issue resolved in the appellant’s favor at a suppression hearing, the Court of Appeals has instructed that the required remedy is to “reverse the denial of suppression and remit the case to [the] Supreme Court for further proceedings” with respect to that issue … . People v Tates, 2020 NY Slip Op 07405, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE JUDGE SUGGESTED THE WAIVER WAS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO APPEAL; THE OFFICER WHO APPROACHED DEFENDANT ON THE STREET WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REACHING FOR AN OBJECT IN DEFENDANT’S SWEATSHIRT POCKET; DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT AND DISCARDING OF THE WEAPON WAS NOT INDEPENDENT OF THE OFFICER’S UNJUSTIFIED ACTIONS; THE GUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, finding the waiver of appeal invalid, granted defendant’s suppression motion and dismissed the indictment. The officer who approached defendant saw the shape of something heavy in defendant’s sweatshirt pocket, said “what’s this” and reached for it. At that point defendant ran and discarded a weapon:

When explaining the waiver of the right to appeal, the Supreme Court stated, inter alia, that as a result of the waiver, the defendant was “giving up [his] independent right to appeal [his] case to a higher court,” and that the case “ends here” upon sentencing. These statements incorrectly suggested that the waiver may be an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal … . …

The officer was justified in conducting a common-law inquiry, and the officer was permitted to ask the defendant if he was carrying a weapon … . However, the officer was not justified in attempting to touch the defendant’s sweatshirt pocket as a minimally intrusive self-protective measure, since the defendant did not engage in any conduct justifying such an intrusion … . The defendant’s response of fleeing and discarding the gun was not “an independent act involving a calculated risk attenuated from the underlying [illegal] police conduct” … . People v Soler, 2020 NY Slip Op 07404, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

MOTHER HAD FLED TO ARGENTINA WITH THE CHILD WHILE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER’S PETITION SEEKING VISITATION ON THE GROUND SHE DID NOT HAVE STANDING; MATTER REMITTED FOR A BEST INTERESTS HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court erred in finding the maternal grandmother did not have standing to seek visitation and remitted the matter for a best interests hearing. Mother had fled to Argentina with the child when custody proceedings were pending:

“When a grandparent seeks visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(1), the court must make a two-part inquiry” … . The court must first determine if the grandparent has standing, based on death or equitable circumstances, and if it determines that the grandparent has established standing, it must then determine whether visitation is in the best interests of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 72[1] …).

“Standing [based upon equitable circumstances] should be conferred by the court, in its discretion, only after it has examined all the relevant facts” … . “[A]n essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship” … . “It is not sufficient that the grandparents allege love and affection for their grandchild” … . “They must establish a sufficient existing relationship with their grandchild, or in cases where that has been frustrated by the parents, a sufficient effort to establish one, so that the court perceives it as one deserving the court’s intervention” … .

Here, the Family Court’s determination that the grandmother lacked standing to seek visitation was not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record … . The evidence demonstrated that the grandmother developed a relationship with the child early on in his life and thereafter made repeated efforts to continue that relationship … . Matter of Noguera v Busto, 2020 NY Slip Op 07385, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted because the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

“In a residential foreclosure action, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment must tender sufficient evidence demonstrating the absence of material issues as to its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304” … . RPAPL 1304(1) provides that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower . . . , including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” “The statute further provides the required content for the notice and provides that the notice must be sent by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower” … . Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action … . Proof of the requisite mailings “can be established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof 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” … . …

… [W]ith respect to the mailing by first-class mail, “[t]he presence of 20-digit numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices submitted by the plaintiff, standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304” … . As to Babik’s [the loan servicer’s employee’s] affidavit, not only did Babik “not attest to personal knowledge of the mailing [or] set forth any details regarding … [the loan servicer’s] mailing practices or procedures” … , she did not aver that a 90-day notice was sent in accordance with the statute … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Hershkowitz, 2020 NY Slip Op 07427, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

THE SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE GENERALLY PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the prohibition against successive summary judgment motions applied and the second motion should have been denied:

“Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause” … . “Evidence is not newly discovered simply because it was not submitted on the previous motion” … . “Rather, the evidence that was not submitted in support of the previous summary judgment motion must be used to establish facts that were not available to the party at the time it made its initial motion for summary judgment and which could not have been established through alternative evidentiary means” … . “Successive motions for summary judgment should not be made based upon facts or arguments which could have been submitted on the original motion for summary judgment” … . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Carpenter, 2020 NY Slip Op 07426, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, , , ,

THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST PHYSICAL-THERAPY DEFENDANTS SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REQUIRING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE; THE DOCTRINE OF OSTENSIBLE OR APPARENT AGENCY RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PHYSICAL-THERAPY FACILITY WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE THERAPIST, WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) the negligent supervision cause of action against defendants’ physical therapy services sounded in medical malpractice and therefore required expert opinion evidence; and (2) the defendant physical therapist (Gonikman) was an independent contractor but the doctrine of ostensible or apparent agency raised a question of fact about the facility’s (KCM’s) vicarious liability for Gonikman’s alleged negligence. Plaintiff’s infant daughter, who was receiving physical therapy, fell off a scooter and was injured:

Though a medical facility can be held liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees, it is not generally held liable when the treatment is provided by an independent contractor, even if the facility affiliates itself with that independent contractor … . However, the facility may be held vicariously liable under a theory of apparent or ostensible agency by estoppel … . “In order to create such apparent agency, there must be words or conduct of the principal, communicated to a third party, which give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses the authority to act on behalf of the principal” … . “The third party must reasonably rely on the appearance of authority, based on some misleading words or conduct by the principal, not the agent” … . “Moreover, the third party must accept the services of the agent in reliance upon the perceived relationship between the agent and the principal, and not in reliance on the agent’s skill” … . …

… [S]ince the conduct at issue in the complaint stems from Gonikman’s generalized treatment plan and alleged negligent supervision of the infant daughter during her physical therapy session, the allegation sounds in medical malpractice, not ordinary negligence, because Gonikman’s duty towards the infant daughter derived from the physical therapist-patient relationship … . In support of his cross motion, Gonikman merely submitted a conclusory statement that his therapy plan of activities was consistent with the accepted standard of care, and he failed to submit an expert’s affidavit to establish that he did not deviate from the accepted standard of care for physical therapy … . Weiszberger v KCM Therapy, 2020 NY Slip Op 07425, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

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