You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT DOES NOT APPLY IN ARTICLE 8 FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDINGS; ORDER OF PROTECTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Family Court’s order of protection imposed after a finding appellant had committed a family offense, determined the finding was based upon inadmissible hearsay. The hearsay exception in Article 10 of the Family Court Act does not apply to family offense (Article 8) proceedings:

In a family offense proceeding, “[o]nly competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted in a fact-finding hearing” (Family Ct Act § 834). In child protective proceedings brought pursuant to articles 10 and 10-A of the Family Court Act, there is a statutory hearsay exception for “previous statements made by the child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect” (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi]). “[A]lthough the hearsay exception contained in Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) has been applied in the context of custody proceedings commenced pursuant to Family [Court] Act article 6 where the basis of the custody proceeding is founded on neglect or abuse such that the issues are inextricably interwoven,” section 1046(a)(vi) is inapplicable in a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 … . …

… Dhanmatie Godfrey filed a family offense petition against Zahamin Bahadeur, in which she alleged that Bahadeur committed a family offense against one of her children. The only evidence presented by Godfrey in support of the allegations in the family offense petition were the child’s inadmissible hearsay statements, as testified to by Godfrey. The Family Court erred in admitting the child’s hearsay statements into evidence because the hearsay exception set forth in Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) does not apply in family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 … . Matter of Godfrey v Bahadeur, 2020 NY Slip Op 05750, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND RELIED ON FACTS NOT IN THE RECORD; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice should not have granted because plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit relied on facts not in the record:

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the affirmation of the plaintiffs’ expert, submitted in opposition to the motion, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants deviated or departed from accepted medical practice. Even assuming that the plaintiffs’ expert was qualified to opine on the placement of an epidural catheter, the expert’s opinion that [defendant] departed from the standard of care was conclusory and speculative, and relied on facts that were not supported by the record … . Herrera v Sanroman, 2020 NY Slip Op 05726, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, ,

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

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 and the mortgage:

… [T]he evidence submitted in support of the motion failed to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and that the required notice of default was in fact mailed to the defendants by first-class mail, or actually delivered to the designated address if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage as a condition precedent to foreclosure … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Buah, 2020 NY Slip Op 05722, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff (CV) did not provide the proof required by Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

The version of RPAPL 1304(2) as it existed at the time this action was commenced, provided that, “[t]he notices required by this section shall contain a current list of at least five housing counseling agencies that serve the region where the borrower resides from the most recent listing available from the department of financial services” …

… CV failed to submit evidence to demonstrate that the 90-day notices contained either five housing agencies that served the region where the defendants resided or were from the most recent listing available from the department of financial services. …

Additionally, CV did not submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that the defendants were properly served pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, CV relied upon the affidavit of Matthew W. Regan, its executive vice president, who averred that 90-day notices were sent in accordance with the statute. In his affidavit, Regan referenced copies of 90-day notices, which, however, did not bear any postmark. Moreover, “[t]he presence of 20-digit numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices . . . standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304” … . Also, Regan’s affidavit was insufficient to establish that the required notices were sent in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as Regan did not attest to personal knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which sent the notices, and provided no independent evidence of the actual mailing … . CV XXVIII, LLC v Trippiedi, 2020 NY Slip Op 05721, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, ,

EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, ROBBERY AND BURGLARY FIRST CONVICTIONS REDUCED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reducing defendants’ convictions, determined the evidence of physical injury was legally insufficient:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). The complainant stated that her injuries consisted of a laceration on her neck from the defendant pulling off her necklace and scratches on her wrist from the defendant pulling off her bracelets. She did not go to the hospital and testified that her neck was sore and her wrist felt a little sore and afterwards she had pain in her neck and wrist, although she did not specify when the pain began or as to its duration. The officer who responded to the scene testified that the complainant had a scratch on her neck. Under these circumstances, there was insufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the complainant suffered substantial pain or impairment of her physical condition … . Accordingly, the defendant’s convictions of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree should be reduced to burglary in the second degree and robbery in the third degree, respectively, which lesser crimes were proven at trial … . People v Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 05782, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF NEGLECT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SHELTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the neglect finding based upon an alleged failure to provide adequate shelter was not supported by the evidence:

While the apartment was in a deteriorated condition, there is no evidence that the child, age thirteen, was in danger or imminent danger of impairment due to the condition of the apartment; indeed, the caseworker testified that she observed the child to be healthy and appropriately groomed, the child was at the appropriate grade level, and the child denied any concerns about the father … . The strong inference drawn by the court against the father for failing to testify is insufficient by itself to provide the necessary link between the conditions in the apartment and any imminent harm to the child … . Matter of Angelica M. (Joe M.), 2020 NY Slip Op 05685, First Dept 10-13-20

 

, ,

THE ELEMENT OF THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES PROOF THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO POSSESS A PISTOL OR REVOLVER IS AN EXCEPTION, NOT A PROVISO; CONVICTION VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s conviction of unlawful possession of ammunition pursuant to NYC Administrative Code 10-131[i][3], determined the language of the statute required that the People prove defendant was not authorized to possess a pistol or a revolver, which was not established by the evidence:

… [T]he language of the ammunition possession statute (Administrative Code § 10-131[i][3]) concerning authorization to possess a pistol or revolver within the City is an exception, not a proviso (Tatis, 170 AD3d at 48). Therefore, the People were required to prove, as an element of the offense, that defendant was not authorized to possess a pistol or revolver, regardless of whether defendant raised the issue in the first instance (id.). The evidence at trial did not establish that fact. Accordingly, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to vacate that conviction. People v Anonymous, 2020 NY Slip Op 05689, First Dept 10-13-20

 

,

CITIZEN INFORMANT WHO WALKED INTO THE POLICE STATION PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO JUSTIFY APPROACHING A VAN IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS SLEEPING, LEADING TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEW WITH THE INFORMANT DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police, after interviewing a citizen informant who walked into the police station, had reasonable suspicion to approach a van in which the defendant was sleeping. Thereafter the police were justified in asking the defendant to step out of the van for safety reasons and in arresting the defendant when an officer saw a handgun in defendant’s waistband. The dissent argued the informant (who identified himself to the police but was not identified to the defendant) did not provide sufficiently detailed information to justify approaching the van:

…[T]he testimony of a police officer during the suppression hearing established that a citizen informant walked into a police station at 4:30 a.m. and reported that two men had “ripped him off” during “a drug deal gone wrong.” The informant, who identified himself by name to the officer but whose identity was not disclosed to defendant, appeared to be angry and upset and did not seem to be intoxicated. The informant alleged, inter alia, that the two men were in a purple minivan at a specific address on Stevens Street in the City of Buffalo, and that “there were drugs in the vehicle” and one of the men “was holding [a] handgun in his lap.” The police officer interviewed the informant for 10 to 15 minutes, during which time the officer had an opportunity to evaluate his reliability on the basis of his appearance and demeanor … . The informant’s reliability was enhanced because he identified himself to the officer and reported that he had attempted to take part in a drug transaction, thus making a declaration against penal interest and subjecting himself to potential prosecution for his own criminal activity … . The informant also waited at the police station while officers investigated the allegations, thereby subjecting himself to “the criminal sanctions attendant upon falsely reporting information to the authorities” … . Thus, we conclude that the People established the reliability of the informant by establishing that the officer obtained information from him during a face-to-face encounter … , and that information did not constitute an anonymous tip … .

From the dissent:

… [A]lthough the majority relies on the ability of the police “to evaluate [the] reliability [of the informant]” during face-to-face contact … , the testimony of the police officer who met the informant reveals that the officer lacked sufficient information to make such an evaluation. The officer believed that the informant appeared agitated, and conceded that he did not know whether the informant was sober. The informant offered the officer no description of the men who purportedly “ripped him off” or how the alleged drug deal had gone wrong, and the officer testified that he never even asked the informant when that incident took place. Instead, the informant offered no more than the description of the outside of a vehicle … . People v Edwards, 2020 NY Slip Op 05672, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS RULE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district did not demonstrate the applicability of the storm-in-progress rule in this slip and fall case:

… [D]efendants did not meet their initial burden of establishing that plaintiff’s injuries were the result of “an icy condition occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter” … . Although defendants submitted an affidavit from a meteorologic expert, Doppler radar data, and deposition testimony establishing that it had been snowing and icy on the date of the accident from the early morning hours through 3:00 p.m., the time plaintiff fell, defendants also submitted conflicting evidence regarding how much snow actually accumulated in the area of the middle school. Defendants’ expert never set forth, by opinion or otherwise, any specific amount of snowfall in the Town of Yorkshire on the date of plaintiff’s fall. … Thus, defendants’ own submissions raised a question of fact whether there was a storm in progress at the time of the fall.

Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their initial burden, plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether the ice upon which she fell preexisted the weather event … . Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of an expert meteorologist who averred that a thaw in the days prior to the accident, followed by a drop in temperatures from the night before into the morning hours of the accident, would account for the formation of the ice. Plaintiff also submitted deposition testimony establishing that there had been thick ice in the parking lot since the day before the accident, and that defendants’ groundskeeper had plowed down to the ice … . We also conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether defendants had constructive notice of the condition … . Ayers v Pioneer Cent. Sch. Dist., 2020 NY Slip Op 05622, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

,

HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM WERE NOT CORROBORATED, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the neglect finding, determined the hearsay statements of the alleged victim were not corroborated:

The finding of neglect was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. “Unsworn out-of-court statements of the victim may be received and, if properly corroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect” … . Here, the child’s out-of-court statement made during his videotaped interview with an investigator from the the Child Advocacy Center, that respondent bit him on the right shoulder during a January 2017 incident, was not sufficiently corroborated … . Although medical findings confirmed that the child sustained injuries that were consistent with a bite mark, those findings in no way connected those marks to respondent. Further, there is no dispute that the child told respondent that he was going to make false allegations against her to the Administration for Children’s Services while the fact-finding hearing was pending, rendering his overall credibility quite impaired. Matter of Jaylin S. (Jasmine E.T.), 2020 NY Slip Op 05606, First Dept 10-8-20

 

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