You are here: / Evidence
, ,

DEFENDANTS’ CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS DID NOT REBUT THE SWORN ALLEGATIONS OF PROPER SERVICE AND MAILING OF THE SUMMONS, COMPLAINT AND REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1303 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the foreclosure action on the ground defendants were never served should not have been granted:

… [T]he affidavit of service contained sworn allegations reciting that service was made upon Simone Cohen at 4:48 p.m. on March 3, 2009, by delivering to her the summons, complaint, and notice required by RPAPL 1303 at the subject property. The affidavit of service included a description of Simone Cohen. Another affidavit of service of the same process server contained sworn allegations reciting that service was made upon Avi Cohen by delivering a copy of the relevant papers to “SIMONE COHEN (WIFE),” a person of suitable age and discretion, at 4:48 p.m. on March 3, 2009, at the subject property, “[s]aid premises being the Defendant’s dwelling place within the State of New York,” and described Simone Cohen as above. The process server further averred that on March 4, 2009, he mailed those documents to Avi Cohen at the address of the subject property “by depositing a true copy of the same in a postpaid, properly addressed envelope in a[n] official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post office.” Two additional affidavits of service recited that on March 4, 2009, copies of the summons were mailed to each defendant at the subject property.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendants’ submissions failed to rebut the affidavit of service, since they stated only that Simone Cohen could not have been present at the time of the alleged service since she picked up her children from school every Tuesday and that she could not have understood or answered the process server’s questions or understood the import of the legal papers since she was not proficient in English. The defendants’ conclusory and unsubstantiated submissions did not rebut the sworn allegation that a person fitting the physical description of Simone Cohen was present at the residence at the time and accepted service … . Moreover, Avi Cohen did not deny that he received the papers in the mail and thus did not overcome the inference of proper mailing that arose from the affidavit of service … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Cohen, 2020 NY Slip Op 04312, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1180 (d) (SPEEDING) WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; THE POLICE OFFICER DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT ON A DIFFERENT DATE AT THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the administrative finding that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1180 (d) (speeding) was not supported by substantial evidence because the police officer described an incident on a different date at the hearing:

At the hearing, the police officer, who issued the summons to the petitioner, testified about events which occurred on March 18, 2016, which was not the date that the alleged offense occurred according to the summons issued to the petitioner. While the substantial evidence standard “demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable'” … , here, there was no testimony or evidence provided to demonstrate that the petitioner operated his vehicle in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) on March 8, 2016. Given the discrepancy between the date of the offense as set forth in the summons and the testimony of the officer, relying on his notes which also referred to March 18, 2016, the record does not demonstrate that the ALJ was presented with substantial evidence that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) on March 8, 2016 … . Matter of Batra v Egan, 2020 NY Slip Op 04300, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ICE FORMED AFTER A PRIOR STORM AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. Although there was a storm in progress at the time of the slip and fall, there were questions of fact whether ice had formed from a storm two days before and whether the defendants had constructive notice of the condition:

Under the storm in progress rule, “[a] property owner will not be held liable in negligence for a plaintiff’s injuries sustained as the result of an icy condition occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter” … . Here, in support of their summary judgment motion, the defendants submitted climatological data which showed that on January 26, 2015, trace amounts of snow fell in the morning, and that the snow began to increase in intensity at about the time of the accident and continued into the next day. That same data, however, also showed that 3.6 inches of snow fell on January 24, 2015, and that 2 inches of snow depth remained on January 26, 2015. Although the defendants established that a snowstorm was in progress at the time of the plaintiff’s fall, the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff’s fall was a result of an icy condition which developed as a result of the snowfall on January 26, and not that of January 24 … . Notably, while the defendants provided evidence of their general snow removal practices, they provided no evidence regarding any specific removal efforts following the January 24 storm, including on January 26 prior to the plaintiff’s fall. Thus, the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy condition that was a product of the storm in progress, or that they lacked constructive notice of a preexisting condition … . Kearse v 40 Wall St. Holdings Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 04296, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF-PEDESTRIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COURT CAN CONSIDER COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHERE, AS HERE, THE PLAINTIFF MOVES TO DISMISS THE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-pedestrian’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The court noted that evidence of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence, although no longer an impediment to summary judgment, can be considered by the court where the plaintiff moves to dismiss a comparative-negligence affirmative defense:

“A plaintiff in a negligence action moving for summary judgment on the issue of liability must establish, prima facie, that the defendant breached a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the alleged injuries” … . “To be entitled to partial summary judgment a plaintiff does not bear the . . . burden of establishing . . . the absence of his or her own comparative fault” … . Even though a plaintiff is no longer required to establish his or her freedom from comparative negligence to be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability, the issue of a plaintiff’s comparative negligence may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where, as here, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment dismissing a defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence … .

Here, the plaintiff established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting, inter alia, her own affidavit, which demonstrated that she was walking within a crosswalk with the pedestrian signal in her favor when Martinez, who was attempting to make a left turn, failed to yield the right-of-way and struck her … . The plaintiff’s affidavit was also sufficient to establish, prima facie, that she was not at fault in the happening of the accident, as it demonstrated that she exercised due to care by confirming that she had the pedestrian signal in her favor and by looking for oncoming traffic in all directions before entering the crosswalk and that the collision occurred so suddenly that she could not avoid it … . Hai Ying Xiao v Martinez, 2020 NY Slip Op 04295, Second Dept 7-29-20

Similar issues and result in Maliakel v Morio, 2020 NY Slip Op 04298, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

, , ,

WHETHER THE DEFENDANT FIRST STOPPED AT THE STOP SIGN OR DROVE THROUGH THE STOP SIGN DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE EITHER WAY THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WAS VIOLATED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for a judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 4401) was properly denied, but the motion to set aside the defense verdict in this intersection traffic accident case (CPLR 4404 (a)) should have been granted. Defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by proceeding into the intersection on a road controlled by a stop sign. Whether defendant first stopped at the stop sign or went through the stop sign doesn’t matter:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial. The evidence established that the defendant violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1142(a) and 1172(a) … . The defendant’s statutory duty to yield to the plaintiff continued even after the defendant entered the intersection. Such statutory violations constitute negligence as a matter of law and could not properly be disregarded by the jury … . Accordingly, the jury could not have returned a verdict that the defendant was not negligent on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Ramirez v Cruse, 2020 NY Slip Op 04334, Second Dept 7-29-20

 

,

THE DUPLICITY IN THE INDICTMENT WAS REMEDIED BY DETAILS PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE PRIOR TO TRIAL AND BY DETAILED TRIAL EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department held the prosecutor had remedied the duplicity in the indictment by providing information in a supplemental bill of particulars and a “trial indictment” after the motion to dismiss for duplicity was made, information corroborated by detailed trial evidence;

With respect to the counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree, after defendant made his motion, the prosecutor provided him with a supplemental bill of particulars that identified a precise date for each of the first 10 counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree. We conclude that dismissal of those counts is not required because the duplicity was “cured by reference to a bill of particulars supplementing the indictment” … . ,,,

With respect to the counts of rape in the first degree, although the duplicity of those counts was left unaddressed by the supplemental bill of particulars, before trial, the prosecutor provided defendant with a document styled as a “trial indictment,” which indicated that the People intended to prove a specific instance with respect to each of the counts on which defendant was ultimately convicted … . In addition, the People provided evidence of those specific instances of forced sexual intercourse at trial by offering the testimony of the victim … . The victim’s testimony was detailed, graphic, and corroborated by receipts, photographs, and emails that allowed the victim to pinpoint the precise dates on which each of those incidents of forced sexual intercourse occurred. “Because defendant was convicted only of those counts of [rape in the first degree] where pretrial notice of specific instances was given and where those specific instances were proved at trial” … , we conclude that dismissal of those counts as duplicitous was not required. People v Quiros, 2020 NY Slip Op 04279, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT’S DNA ON THE WEAPON AND DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE AS A PASSENGER IN THE CAR WHERE THE WEAPON WAS FOUND WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE WEAPON AT THE TIME ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION REVERSED BASED ON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon conviction, applying a weight of the evidence analysis, determined the defendant’s DNA on the weapon and his presence as a passenger in the car where the weapon was found was not enough:

It is undisputed that the driver owned the vehicle and that the duffle bag belonged to him as well. The People relied on evidence that defendant’s DNA profile matched that of the major contributor to DNA found on the handgun and that the driver was excluded as a contributor thereto. Although ” an inference could be made [from that evidence] that defendant had physically possessed the gun at some point in time’ ” … , that evidence alone … does not establish that defendant actually possessed the handgun on the date and at the time alleged in the indictment … . …

Defendant was not the owner or operator of the vehicle, nor did the duffle bag in the locked trunk belong to him, and there was no evidence that defendant possessed or had access to the keys for the vehicle or that he had any access to or control over the trunk and duffle bag … . Contrary to the People’s contention, defendant’s statement to the police did not constitute an admission that he had possessed the handgun …  or that he knew about its presence in the duffle bag and, in any event, mere knowledge of the presence of the handgun would not establish constructive possession … . People v Hunt, 2020 NY Slip Op 04270, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

,

SEVERE ABUSE FINDING SUPPORTED BY FATHER’S FAILURE TO SEEK IMMEDIATE MEDICAL CARE FOR THE SERIOUSLY INJURED CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the evidence supported the severe abuse finding against father on the ground father delayed in seeking medical attention for the child’s severe injuries:

Family Court’s finding of severe abuse was based on two incidents in which the father found the older child at the bottom of the basement stairs in the morning. After the first incident, the older child sustained back and leg injuries, torso abrasions and facial bruising that was so severe that she could not open her eyes all the way. After the second incident, the child had two lacerations across the front of her neck that required significant medical attention. * * *

A finding of severe abuse requires clear and convincing evidence that a child was found to be abused “as a result of reckless or intentional acts of the parent committed under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, which result in serious physical injury to the child as defined in [Penal Law § 10.00 (10)]” (Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [a] [i]; see Family Ct Act §§ 1046 [b] [ii]; 1051 [e]). Here, the older child suffered severe injuries, including cuts to her throat that required a significant amount of medical attention and serious bruising. The act of cutting the older child’s throat twice demonstrates that the actor did so because he or she simply did not care whether grievous harm would result to the older child. Even assuming, arguendo, that the evidence did not establish that the father was the one who inflicted those injuries, we conclude that the evidence demonstrates that he was in the home when the older child sustained her serious physical injuries and that he offered no compelling explanation for what caused them or why he failed to seek immediate medical help for her after discovering those injuries … .

We disagree with the dissent’s view that petitioner was required to present evidence that the father’s delay in seeking medical treatment exacerbated the older child’s injuries or complicated the older child’s medical treatment. Matter of Mya N. (Reginald N.–Sadie H.), 2020 NY Slip Op 04266, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

,

THE PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER STATEMENT WAS INADEQUATE BECAUSE IT DID NOT CLEARLY INDICATE THE PERIODS OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR INCARCERATION; THEREFORE, BECAUSE THE TEN-YEAR CUT-OFF PERIOD IS TOLLED DURING INCARCERATION, IT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED WHETHER DEFENDANT’S PRIOR FELONIES FELL WITHIN THE TEN-YEAR CUT-OFF PERIOD FOR A VALID PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the persistent felony offender statement was inadequate because it did not clearly describe the periods of defendant’s incarceration, which tolls the ten-year cut off for consideration of prior felonies. The matter was remitted for the submission of a valid statement and resentencing:

The sentences upon the predicate violent felony convictions “must have been imposed not more than ten years before commission of the felony of which the defendant presently stands convicted” (§ 70.04 [1] [b] [iv]). However, “[i]n calculating the ten year period . . . , any period of time during which the person was incarcerated for any reason between the time of commission of the previous felony and the time of commission of the present felony shall be excluded and such ten year period shall be extended by a period or periods equal to the time served under such incarceration” (§ 70.04 [1] [b] [v]). It is undisputed that, here, the sentences for defendant’s two prior violent felony convictions were imposed more than 10 years before defendant committed the subject violent felony offense (see §§ 70.04 [1] [b]; 70.08 [1] [a], [b]). Thus, the prior violent felony convictions may be considered predicate violent felony convictions only in accordance with the tolling provision of section 70.04 (1) (b) (v) based upon defendant’s subsequent periods of incarceration.

Because the tolling provision of Penal Law § 70.04 (1) (b) (v) is implicated, the persistent violent felony offender statement filed by the People was required to “set forth the date of commencement and the date of termination as well as the place of imprisonment for each period of incarceration to be used for tolling of the ten year limitation” (CPL 400.15 [2]; see CPL 400.16 [1], [2]). Here, however, the statement filed by the People did not comply with that requirement … . Moreover, contrary to the position taken by the People that the statement substantially complies with CPL 400.15, the absence of the required information deprived defendant of the requisite “reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard” with respect to the tolling period … . People v Watkins, 2020 NY Slip Op 04265, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

,

DEFENDANT TOLD THE POLICE HE DIDN’T WANT TO TALK, HIS STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED BUT THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR POSSESSION OF THE KNIFE AND MURDER BY STABBING FOUND PROPER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s statement should have been suppressed but found the error harmless. The Fourth Department further held that defendant was properly sentenced to consecutive sentences for possession of the knife and murder by stabbing:

… [D]efendant unequivocally informed the police immediately after being advised of his Miranda rights that “he didn’t want to talk.” No reasonable police officer could have interpreted that statement as anything other than a desire not to talk to the police … . Regardless, the police continued the interrogation, thereby failing to ” scrupulously honor[ ]’ defendant’s right to remain silent” … .

Nevertheless, the error is harmless because the evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there is no reasonable possibility that any error in admitting defendant’s statements to the police contributed to his conviction … . * * *

In cases concerning consecutive sentencing in the CPW [criminal possession of a weapon] context, we employ a framework that “appropriately reflects the heightened level of integration between the possession and the ensuing substantive crime for which the weapon was used” … . To determine whether a single act constituted both offenses under section 70.25 (2), we look to when the crime of possession was completed, i.e., both the actus reus and mens rea … .”Only where the act of possession is accomplished before the commission of the ensuing crime and with a mental state that both satisfies the statutory mens rea element and is discrete from that of the underlying crime may consecutive sentences be imposed” … . Consecutive sentencing is permissible here because defendant’s act of possessing the knife was accomplished before he used it to kill the victim and “defendant’s possession [thereof] was marked by an unlawful intent separate and distinct from” his intent with respect to the homicide … . Indeed, the mental state associated with the CPW count, i.e., intent to use the knife unlawfully, is discrete from the mental state associated with the homicide count, i.e., negligence … . People v Colon, 2020 NY Slip Op 04257, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

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