You are here: / Evidence
,

A PARTY’S ADMISSION IN AN UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT IS NO LONGER ADMISSIBLE IN THE 2ND DEPARTMENT AND DECISIONS TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, reversing Supreme Court, noting prior decisions to the contrary should no longer be followed, determined a party’s hearsay admission in an uncertified police report is not admissible. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should not have been granted:

At the first level of hearsay, the report itself must be admissible. A properly certified police accident report is admissible where “the report is made based upon the officer’s personal observations and while carrying out police duties” … . CPLR 4518(c) provides that the foundation for the admissibility of, inter alia, the records of a department or bureau of a municipal corporation or of the state may be laid through a proper certification … . CPLR 4518(c) “is governed by the same standards as the general business record exception” … . Thus, the certification must “set forth” … that the record “was made in the regular course of any business and that it was the regular course of such business to make it, at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter” (CPLR 4518[a]). * * *

Although a line of cases from our Court held that an uncertified police report constitutes inadmissible hearsay … , a separate line of cases anomalously espoused a carve-out to that rule, holding that a party’s admission in an uncertified police report is admissible against that party. Although a party’s admission is an exception to the hearsay rule … , it is not logically consistent to hold that such admission may be received into evidence where the business record containing the purported admission is not itself in admissible form. Stated differently, a party’s admission contained within a police accident report may not be bootstrapped into evidence if a proper foundation for the admissibility of the report itself has not been laid. Yassin v Blackman, 2020 NY Slip Op 05090, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

, , ,

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s reply papers were properly considered but plaintiff did not submit sufficient proof that a condition precedent in the mortgage agreement, re: notice of default, was complied with:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the affidavit of the plaintiff’s employee Jeremiah Herberg, which was submitted with the plaintiff’s papers in opposition to the defendant’s cross motion and in further support of its motion … . Although “‘[a] party moving for summary judgment generally cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply . . . , there are exceptions to the general rule, including . . . when the other party is given an opportunity to respond to the reply papers'” … . Here, the defendant had the opportunity to address the Herberg affidavit in her reply papers in further support of her own cross motion.

However, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in section 22 of the mortgage agreement regarding the notice of default. The plaintiff’s submissions did not establish that the notice was sent by first class mail or actually delivered to the notice address, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . Furthermore, Herberg’s affidavit failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records concerning the plaintiff’s mailing of the notices of default (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v McKenzie, 2020 NY Slip Op 05086, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE IT TOOK ACTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (c) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient evidence that it commenced proceedings to enter a default judgment within one year of the default. Therefore the bank had abandoned the action:

… [T]he plaintiff … relies upon two pages in the record. The first of those two pages is a “CamScanner” copy of the face sheet of a proposed order of reference reflecting the caption of this action, a blank line over the words “(ORD OF REF) FEE PAID,” and a pagination of “Page 1 of 2.” The page is devoid of markings that it was ever presented to any Justice of the Supreme Court as no name is written next to “Hon.” above the caption, and no presentment date is reflected in the blank spaces at the upper right-hand corner of the document where the date and month of presentments are typically identified. There is nothing that indicates that this document was ever filed with the court. The second “CamScanner” page relied upon by the plaintiff, delineated as “Page 2 of 2,” reflects what appears to be either a 2010 or 2019 date stamp, in an unreadable month and date, at 12:07 p.m., with two looping lines that may or may not be a penned signature. The date stamp does not identify it as being placed upon the document by any particular person, entity, or court, and does not contain the word “Filed.” Both of the pages relied upon by the plaintiff contain in their lower right-hand corners the notation “Printed: 10/5/20,” without a full readable year. No other pages comprising the purported proposed order of reference were provided, though the first page, which ends in mid-sentence, is clearly not the entirety of the document.

Since CPLR 3215(c) provides that courts “shall” dismiss actions as abandoned where the plaintiff fails to take proceedings within one year after a default “unless sufficient cause is shown,” the burden was upon the plaintiff to establish sufficient cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed in this instance … . Here, the burden was not met. HSBC Mtge. Corp. v Hasan, 2020 NY Slip Op 05036, Second Dept. 9-23-20

 

, , , , , ,

DESPITE THE ALLEGATION THAT THE DRIVER HAD LOGGED OFF THE UBER APP PRIOR TO THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY; THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD’S FINDING THAT THE DRIVER WAS EMPLOYED BY UBER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PRECLUSIVE EFFECT; ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case, determined: (1) a ruling by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that defendant driver was an employee of defendant Uber was not entitled collateral-estoppel effect pursuant to Labor Law 623( 2); (2) although the Labor Law 623(2) argument was not raised below, it raised a question of law which could not have been avoided below and therefore was considered on appeal; (3) the claim that defendant driver had logged off the Uber app at the time of the accident did not warrant summary judgment in favor of Uber on the vicarious liability theory:

An action may be considered to be within the scope of employment, thus rendering an employer vicariously liable for the conduct, when “the employee is engaged generally in the business of the employer, or if the act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . Whether an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment is generally a question of fact for the jury … .

Here, contrary to Uber’s contention, the averments [that the driver] had logged off of the Uber app 40 minutes before the accident were simply insufficient, without more, to eliminate all questions of fact as to whether Hussein was acting within the scope of his alleged employment with Uber at the time of the incident … . Uy v Hussein, 2020 NY Slip Op 05080, Second Dept 9-23-30

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MERE DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements and, therefore, the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Defendant’s denial of receipt of the RPAPL 1394 notice, however, was not enough to warrant summary judgment in favor of defendant:

“‘Although not jurisdictional, proper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a residential foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition'” … . …

… [A]lthough the plaintiff submitted a copy of the 90-day notice purportedly sent to [defendant], the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or other proof of mailing by the post office establishing that the plaintiff properly sent the notice by registered or certified mail and first-class mail pursuant to RPAPL 1304 … . Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing, 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 plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . TD Bank, N.A. v Roberts, 2020 NY Slip Op 05074, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

, , ,

BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE OMITTED A PORTION OF THE BURGLARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBJECT, THE PEOPLE ARE HELD TO THE PROOF REQUIRED BY THE INCOMPLETE INSTRUCTIONS; THE BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT CLEAR-CUT AND DISPOSITIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the burglary conviction as against the weight of the evidence, determined the People were held to the proof required by the the jury instructions to which the People did not object. The portion of the instructions which explained that entry into a private area of a building after entering the building through a public area constitutes unlawful entry was left out. Because the defendant entered the building through a public entrance, the People did not prove unlawful entry as charged to the jury. The Second Department also held that defense counsel’s failure to make a speedy trial motion did not constitute ineffective assistance because it was not clear the motion would succeed:

While the failure to make a meritorious speedy trial motion can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel … , the speedy trial violation must have been “clear-cut and dispositive” … . In other words, the motion must not only be meritorious … , it generally must not require resolution of novel issues, or resolution of whether debatable exclusions of time are applicable … . Here, the issue cannot be fairly characterized as “clear-cut and dispositive” so as to render defense counsel ineffective for failing to make such a motion … . * * *

The testimony at trial was unequivocal that the defendant and two cohorts entered the subject premises, a self-storage facility, during business hours, using the entrance designated for use by the public. The defendant’s entry into the premises was therefore lawful … . While the defendant’s subsequent act of entering a nonpublic area of the premises could constitute an unlawful entry (see Penal Law § 140.00[5] … ), in light of the Supreme Court’s charge omitting that portion of the instruction elaborating upon license and privilege as it applies to nonpublic areas within public places, and asking the jury whether the defendant unlawfully entered the premises generally, it was factually insufficient to prove that the defendant’s entry was unlawful. People v McKinnon, 2020 NY Slip Op 05056, Second Dept 9-23-30

 

,

THE AFFIDAVIT FROM PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE SOLE BASIS FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR ACCIDENT CASE; THE AFFIDAVIT, FOR SEVERAL REASONS, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this bicycle-car accident case, based entirely on the affidavit from plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert (Witte), was properly denied. The bicyclist died in the accident. The driver, Amyot, and her husband, a passenger, died later:

… [W]e note that Witte does not aver that his opinion is within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Although the failure to do so does not de facto render his affidavit invalid … , the affidavit must contain an evidentiary foundation that would support plaintiff’s verdict if offered at trial … . This it failed to do. Witte’s conclusions — which were based on the timing of the accident, i.e., where Amyot should have seen decedent and the precise distances and times averred to by Witte — are not based on facts evident in the record, but rather on the statement that Amyot’s husband made to police that “[a] couple houses past [the] speed zone on the right, I saw [decedent] on his bike coming out of . . . the driveway.” It is unclear from this statement whether Amyot’s husband was located “a couple” of houses past the speed zone when he saw decedent or whether decedent and the driveway from which he was exiting were located “a couple” of houses past the speed zone. Further, one cannot discern what constitutes “a couple.” For these reasons, the factual foundation lacks the probative force adequate to support summary judgment … . …

… [A]part from the supporting depositions, all of the documents that Witte utilized in forming his opinion are unsworn, uncertified and/or unauthenticated. Although the professional reliability exception to the hearsay rule allows “an expert witness to provide opinion evidence based on otherwise inadmissible hearsay,” it must be shown “to be the type of material commonly relied on in the profession” … . Furthermore, even if such reliability is shown, “it may not be the sole basis for the expert’s opinion” … . Delosh v Amyot, 2020 NY Slip Op 05003, Third Dept 9-17-20

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER HAD NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED ELEVATOR MISALIGNMENT PROBLEM WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the elevator was functioning properly and whether defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the misalignment which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall:

… [T]he property defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing, through the deposition testimony of their witnesses and an expert affidavit, that no complaints were ever made about misalignment of the elevator, that routine inspections of the building by employees did not reveal the presence of such a condition, and that an inspection conducted of the elevator three days before the accident did not reveal any defects that would cause misalignment.

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, among other things, an affidavit from her mother, who then resided in the building, asserting that during the month preceding the accident, she observed misalignment of the elevator “almost every day,” and that, in response to a complaint about misalignment by another resident, a member of the condominium’s Board of Managers had acknowledged the problem in her presence … . The plaintiff also submitted evidence demonstrating the documented occurrence of prior similar incidents of misalignment, and an unsatisfactory inspection report for the elevator, completed three days before the accident, which, according to the plaintiff’s expert, and contrary to the averment of the property defendants’ expert and other witnesses, evinced defects which would cause misalignment. The plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the property defendants had notice of the allegedly defective condition that caused the plaintiff’s accident … . Napolitano v Jackson “78” Condominium, 2020 NY Slip Op 04955, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, ,

THE STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED WITHIN THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank did not prove the debt had been de-accelerated and therefore did not demonstrate the foreclosure action was not time-barred. It was not demonstrated that the stipulation of discontinuance affirmatively revoked the initial acceleration of the debt:

“A lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action” … .

Here, there is no evidence in the record of any affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period following the initiation of the 2008 foreclosure action … . The only evidence submitted by the plaintiff to establish its affirmative act of revocation was a printout of the Queens County Clerk Minutes, showing that a stipulation of discontinuance and a consent to cancel the lis pendens were filed in the 2008 foreclosure action on July 1, 2013. The plaintiff did not submit a copy of the stipulation of discontinuance. A stipulation of discontinuance will not, by itself, constitute an affirmative act of revocation where the stipulation is silent on the issue of the election to accelerate, and does not otherwise indicate that the plaintiff would accept installment payments from the defendant … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hussain, 2020 NY Slip Op 04997, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR BUSINESS RECORDS SUBMITTED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the evidence of compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 was insufficient:

The plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action, on its motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint … failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its compliance with RPAPL 1304 because it failed to lay a proper foundation for the business records submitted as proof that the RPAPL 1304 notice was sent by first-class mail (see RPAPL 1304[2]; CPLR 4518[a]). In particular, the representative of the plaintiff who attempted to lay such a foundation failed to attest either that the records, which were created by a different entity, were incorporated into the plaintiff’s records and routinely relied upon by the plaintiff in its business, or that she had personal knowledge of that entity’s business practices and procedures … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hirsch, 2020 NY Slip Op 04996, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

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