You are here: / Evidence
,

REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RELIED UPON HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report should not have been relied upon in this foreclosure action because the report was based on hearsay:

The referee relied on an affidavit sworn to October 2, 2018 by an assistant vice president of plaintiff’s loan servicer, who asserted that, according to the books and records of plaintiff pertaining to defendant’s loan and payment history, defendant had been in default since March 1, 2009, and owed plaintiff the amount stated. However, because the books and records themselves were not submitted to the court, the affiant’s assertions are inadmissible hearsay … . Nor did the affiant lay a foundation for the introduction of the books and records as a business record (see CPLR 4518[a]). Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Kirschenbaum, 2020 NY Slip Op 05849, First Dept 10-20-20

 

,

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON THE CONDITION OF THE HOME (FIRST DEPT),

The First Department, in affirming neglect findings based upon leaving the children unattended in a car and in the bathtub, determined that the evidence did not support the neglect finding based upon the condition of the home:

The only evidence that respondents failed to maintain the home in a sanitary condition was the caseworker’s testimony about her observations during a single visit, which is insufficient to support the finding of neglect on that basis … . Matter of Dream F. (Phillystina R.), 2020 NY Slip Op 05832, First Dept 10-15-20

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRWAY HAD LAST BEEN CLEANED OR INSPECTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case because it did not demonstrate when the stairway where plaintiff slipped and fell was last cleaned or inspected:

Defendant did not demonstrate that it lacked constructive notice of the grease as it failed to show when the stairwell was last cleaned or inspected … . Proof of a regular maintenance schedule “does not suffice for purposes of showing that it was followed” … , and since the superintendent was due to clean the hallways and stairs on the day of the accident, plaintiff’s observation of debris on the stairs shows that no such maintenance was done prior to her fall. White v MP 40 Realty Mgt. LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05838, First Dept 10-15-20

 

, ,

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

 

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