You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS DAMAGES-ONLY PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF; $5,500,000 VERDICT SET ASIDE AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial in this personal injury action which had resulted in a $5,500,000 verdict, determined the “burden of proof” jury instruction should not have been given in this damages-only trial:

… [T]he defendants contend … that the verdict and judgment must be set aside on the ground that they were deprived of a fair trial by the Supreme Court’s improper jury instruction on the law. Specifically, the defendants contend that the court erroneously charged the jury with respect to the burden of proof.

“A trial court is required to state the law relevant to the particular facts in issue, and a set of instructions that confuses or incompletely conveys the germane legal principles to be applied in a case requires a new trial”… .

Here, we agree with the defendants that under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court’s determination to charge Pattern Jury Instructions 1:60 was improper in the context of a trial limited to the issue of damages only and was prejudicial to the defendants in that it shifted the burden of proof. In light of the court’s error in the charge, substantial justice was not done since the jury was not instructed with the germane legal principles to be applied … . Gorokhova v Consolidated Edison of N.Y., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04828, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENDANT IN THIS INQUEST ON DAMAGES; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DEFAULTED ON LIABILITY IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, DEFENDANT APPEARED FOR THE INQUEST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the injured plaintiff’s (Castaldini’s) treating physician should have been made available for cross-examination by defendant at the inquest on damages. Defendant had defaulted on liability but appeared at the inquest. Supreme Court accepted an affidavit from the doctor to prove damages. The court noted that causation of the damages is not considered in an inquest:

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to admit into evidence the written sworn statement of Castaldini’s treating physician without making the physician available for cross-examination. At an inquest to ascertain damages upon a defendant’s default, the plaintiff may submit proof by written sworn statements of the witnesses (see CPLR 3215[b]; 22 NYCRR 202.46[b]). However, where, as here, the defaulting defendant gives notice that he or she will appear at the inquest, the plaintiff must make the witnesses available for cross-examination (see CPLR 3215[b] …). Since Walsh did not make the physician available for cross-examination, the court should not have admitted into evidence the physician’s written sworn statement over Walsh’s objection. Further, since the court relied on the physician’s statement in making its findings of fact on damages, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new inquest on the issue of damages … . Castaldini v Walsh, 2020 NY Slip Op 04822, First Dept 9-2-20

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY LIMITED THE DEPOSITION QUESTIONING OF A DOCTOR IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND PROPERLY ORDERED THAT THE DEPOSITION BE SUPERVISED BECAUSE OF MISCONDUCT ON BOTH SIDES DURING A PRIOR DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly issued a protective order limiting the deposition questioning of a doctor (Brem) in this medical malpractice action and properly ordered that the deposition be supervised. Both sides had engaged in misconduct at the prior deposition:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting those branches of Winthrop’s [the hospital’s] motion which were for a protective order to the extent of limiting further questioning of Brem solely to his observations and treatment of decubitis ulcers sustained by Slapo [plaintiff’s decedent] and to direct that Brem’s continued deposition be supervised by a special referee. While we agree with the court’s characterization of the improper conduct of Slapo’s attorney at Brem’s deposition, we observe that the defense attorneys violated 22 NYCRR 221.1 by making numerous objections and making speaking objections. We further note that Brem violated 22 NYCRR 221.2 by refusing to answer questions. Given the obstructive conduct by the defense attorneys and Brem in violation of 22 NYCRR part 221, and the improper conduct of Slapo’s attorney during the deposition, we agree with the court that appropriate supervision of the balance of Brem’s deposition is necessary. Because both sides have engaged in arguably sanctionable conduct during the course of Brem’s deposition … , it was inappropriate to compel the plaintiff to solely bear the cost of supervision thereof. Further, without the consent of all the parties, the court may not compel a party to pay for or contribute to the cost of an outside referee (see CPLR 3104[b] …). Accordingly, we modify the order so as to direct that Brem’s continued deposition be supervised by a court-employed special referee … , a judicial hearing officer, or a court attorney referee. Slapo v Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 2020 NY Slip Op 04887, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH HARMLESS, IT WAS ERROR TO ADMIT THE CONTENT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS WITHOUT AUTHENTICATING THE ACCOUNTS, PHOTOGRAPHS AND STATEMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined it was (harmless) error to admit in evidence the content of social media accounts which was not authenticated:

We disagree … with the Supreme Court’s determination admitting into evidence certain content from various social media accounts … . The People failed to present sufficient evidence that the subject social media accounts belonged to the defendant, that the photographs on the accounts were accurate and authentic, or that the statements found on one of the accounts were made by the defendant … . People v Upson, 2020 NY Slip Op 04876, Second Dept 9-2-2020

 

,

THE SENTENCES FOR ASSAULT AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONSECUTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the evidence did not support consecutive sentences for assault second and criminal possession of a weapon second:

… [T]he sentence imposed on the conviction of assault in the second degree should not run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the conviction of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. There were no facts adduced at the defendant’s plea allocution to establish that the defendant attempted to possess ” a loaded firearm before forming the intent to cause a crime with that weapon'” … . People v Goodman, 2020 NY Slip Op 04857, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

,

AN INDICATION THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE HAD BEEN IMPOUNDED, REVEALED WHEN THE TROOPER RAN THE PLATES, DID NOT SUPPORT THE TRAFFIC STOP; THE WEAPON AND DRUGS FOUND IN THE VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a concurring opinion and an extensive dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the state trooper did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to support the traffic stop. The weapon and drugs found in a search of defendant’s (Mr. Hinshaw’s) car should have been suppressed. The stop was based entirely on an indication the car had been impounded revealed when the officer ran the plates. The notice explicitly stated it “should not be treated as a stolen vehicle hit:”

The trooper here did not observe any violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and “everything looked good.” Putting aside the result of the license plate inquiry, “[t]he trooper candidly testified that he had had no reason to stop defendant” … . …

The result of the license plate check provided neither probable cause to conclude a traffic infraction had occurred nor any basis for an objectively reasonable belief that criminal behavior had occurred or was afoot. Although the People and our dissenting colleague argue that the trooper understood the “generic” impound notification to require further investigation as to its cause, the trooper’s speculation that the car could have been impounded for “registration . . . problems,” the “plates could have been suspended,” “insurance could have been suspended,” or the vehicle could have been stolen was just that — pure speculation … . * * *

Because “there was not even a suggestion that the conduct of the defendant or his companions had been furtive in character before the police interfered with their car’s progress,” and “the record here is bare of any objective evidence of criminal activity as of the time of the stop” … , the stop of Mr. Hinshaw’s vehicle was invalid. People v Hinshaw, 2020 NY Slip Op 04816, CtApp 9-1-20

 

, ,

THE PROPER FOUNDATION FOR BUSINESS RECORDS WAS NOT LAID AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED, 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 the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

Harrell [bank vice president]  failed to establish that Wells Fargo was servicing the subject loan at the time of Bhatti’s [defendant’s] alleged default, and that she was personally familiar with the recordkeeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff and/or the loan servicer at that time. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish a proper foundation for the admission of the records relied upon to establish Bhatti’s default under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a] …). …

“By requiring the lender or mortgage loan servicer to send the RPAPL 1304 notice by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail, the Legislature implicitly provided the means for the plaintiff to demonstrate its compliance with the statute, i.e., by proof of the requisite mailing, which 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” … .

Here, the … affidavits were insufficient to establish that the plaintiff mailed the 90-day pre-foreclosure notice required by RPAPL 1304, “as the representative[s] did not provide evidence of a standard office mailing procedure and provided no independent evidence of the actual mailing” … .

Moreover, the Harrell and Green affidavits were also insufficient to establish that a notice of default was in fact mailed to Bhatti by first-class mail, or actually delivered to the designated address if sent by other means, which was required by the terms of the mortgage … . HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assn. v Bhatti, 2020 NY Slip Op 04734, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 APPLIED ONLY TO HIGH-COST OR SUBPRIME LOANS WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, THE QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED ON APPEAL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department considered an issue raised for the first time on appeal because it raised an issue of law which could not have been avoided if raised below. The defendant argued that the strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 applies only to high-cost or subprime loans, not the loan at issue in the case. The Second Department rejected the argument and reversed Supreme Court finding the plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304:

We decline to construe RPAPL 1302(2) in a manner that would render the amendment to RPAPL 1304 superfluous and the requirements set forth in that statute ineffective. Thus … compliance with RPAPL 1304 was a component of its prima facie burden on its motion for summary judgment … . …

Although Mahdak [plaintiff’s representative] stated in her affidavit that the notices were sent to the defendant at his last known address and the subject property, Mahdak did not have personal knowledge of the mailing, and [plaintiff] failed to provide any documents to prove that the notices were actually mailed … . [Plaintiff] also failed to submit a copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notices were sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute … . Furthermore, Mahdak did not aver that she was familiar with [plaintiff’s] mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . H&R Block Bank, FSB v Liles, 2020 NY Slip Op 04733, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

,

PROOF AT DARDEN HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PURPORTED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT EXISTED AND PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the Darden hearing did not support the finding that the purported confidential informant existed and provided sufficient information for the issuance of the search warrant:

The Darden rule is necessary to insure “that the confidential informant both exists and gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause, while protecting the informant’s identity” … . The rule, which “gives clear guidance to lower courts and guarantees that the protections of the Fourth Amendment have not been circumvented” … , “is necessary to properly test the officer’s credibility” … , and is “designed to protect against the contingency, of legitimate concern to a defendant, that the informer might have been wholly imaginary and the communication from him [or her] entirely fabricated” … . …

Here, the Supreme Court’s credibility determinations are not supported by the record. As will be shown, there were substantial material discrepancies between the detective’s affidavit in support of the search warrant, and the testimonies of the alleged CI and the detective at the Darden hearing pertaining to (1) the CI’s track record of reliability, (2) the prior relationship between the detective and the CI, and (3) the facts and circumstances of the alleged controlled buy or buys at the subject apartment. Consequently, we find that the People failed to meet their burden at the Darden hearing. People v Nettles, 2020 NY Slip Op 04776, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

, ,

WHETHER MOTHER MOVED MORE THAN 40 MILES WAS AN ISSUE IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ACTION; FAMILY COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THE MOVE WAS 39 MILES; THE DISSENT ARGUED FAMILY COURT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE BASIS OF THE JUDICIAL NOTICE WHICH PRECLUDED A CHALLENGE TO THE FINDING (THIRD DEPT).

he Third Department determined Family Court properly found that mother had not moved beyond the 40-mile limit imposed by the settlement agreement. The Family Court judge took judicial notice of the distance involved in the move which was determined to be 39 miles. The dissent argued Family Court erred in not specifying the basis for the judicial notice, thereby making it impossible to challenge:

From the dissent:

Although it is well settled that “‘a court may take judicial notice of facts which are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of undisputable accuracy'” … , judicial notice of a fact is improper when it is “from a hearsay source or from unidentifiable or nonindisputable sources outside the record or at a time subsequent to the close of testimony” … . Fundamental fairness thus dictates that a court, before it takes judicial notice of a fact, provide the parties with the basis for its notice and “afford the parties the opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice in the particular instance” … . Otherwise, the determination of whether such fact is or is not “of common knowledge or determinable by resort to sources of indisputable accuracy” cannot be properly tested or reviewed … .

… .Family Court never disclosed the basis for its 39-mile calculation, and it announced that it was taking judicial notice of that “fact” after testimony had concluded and only in the context of its written decision. As such, the parties never had an opportunity to be heard on this issue or dispute the basis for such judicially noticed finding. Nor does the record reflect that Family Court had a factual basis for its conclusion that the relocation provision of the agreement — which the court itself recognized as ambiguous — required that the 40-mile radius be measured between the outermost borders of Deposit and Clarks Summit, rather than from the parties’ respective residences or some other location, particularly since the language of the agreement requires the mother’s residence for the children, and not the boundary line of Clarks Summit, to be within a 40-mile radius from an undetermined location in Deposit. Indeed, the testimony of both parties contradicts the court’s interpretation … . Matter of Lonny C v Elizabeth C., 2020 NY Slip Op 04620, Third Dept 8-20-20

 

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