You are here: / Evidence
, ,

MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER PRO SE PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY TO WARRANT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined that mother presented enough evidence in her pro se petition for a modification of custody to warrant a hearing:

“A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance; assuming this threshold requirement is met, the parent then must show that modification of the underlying order is necessary to ensure the child’s continued best interests” … . “[I]n determining whether a pro se petitioner made a sufficient evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing, we construe the pleadings liberally and afford the petitioner the benefit of every favorable inference. As a general matter, custody determinations should be rendered only after a full and plenary hearing” … .

In her petition, the mother alleged, among other things, that the father repeatedly attempted to take the child with him to a prison to visit an inmate who was convicted of murder and on at least one occasion was successful. She also asserted that the child had no desire to accompany the father on these visits and, in fact, they caused the child significant distress. Furthermore, the mother alleged in her petition that the father has refused to allow any additional parenting time, despite numerous requests, and that he has threatened to take away her court-ordered parenting time. Finally, the mother averred that she has completed therapeutic counseling, is continuing with further therapy and is a fit parent. We find that the pro se petition is sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing based on these allegations. “We also note that the prior custody order was entered upon consent of the parties and there has not . . . been a plenary hearing regarding custody” since 2014 … . Matter of Kimberly H. v Daniel I., 2020 NY Slip Op 03830, Third Dept 7-9-20

 

,

POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT WAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME OF THE STOP AND PURSUIT; THEREFORE THE WEAPON DISCARDED BY DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the indictment, determined the police who stopped and pursued the defendant did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the outset. So the weapon discarded by the defendant should have been suppressed:

“Police pursuit is regarded as significantly impeding a person’s freedom of movement, thus requiring justification by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” … . By contrast, “mere surveillance need not be justified by reasonable suspicion” … .

Although the police actions began as permissible observation, while following defendant slowly in their car without turning on their lights or sirens … , observation gave way to pursuit when the officers turned on their lights and sirens to cross the street against traffic and pull up ahead of defendant. Even crediting one of the officer’s testimony that his intent was to get a better view and alert oncoming traffic, not to cut off, block, or alarm defendant, the objective impact of this maneuver was “intimidating” and communicated “an attempt to capture or . . . intrude upon [defendant’s] freedom of movement” … .

Because it is undisputed that the circumstances before this police activity were not sufficient to create reasonable suspicion, it was unlawful and could not be validated by any subsequently acquired suspicion … . When defendant discarded a handgun during the course of the illegal pursuit, he did not voluntarily abandon it and it should have been suppressed … . People v Collins, 2020 NY Slip Op 03852, First Dept 7-9-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, I.E., FINDING THE DEFECT TRIVIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this staircase slip and fall case should not have been granted. The defendant did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of salt (used to melt ice) on the steps. Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, granted the motion on the ground the salt constituted a trivial defect because the parties did not raise that issue:

“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant must offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the accident … .Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Here, in support of the motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the part-time porter and the deposition testimony of the property manager of the defendant’s building, which merely provided evidence as to the defendant’s general cleaning practices, with no evidence as to when the area at issue was last inspected or cleaned prior to the accident.

The Supreme Court should not have granted the defendant’s motion on the ground that the presence of the salt on the step at issue constituted a trivial defect since the parties did not raise this issue … . Johnson v 101-105 S. Eighth St. Apts. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03773, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A FRYE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING IS AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY, THE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; NO FOUNDATION WAS LAID FOR THE ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the defense verdict in this rear-end collision traffic accident case should have been granted. Although Supreme Court was correct in finding that a Frye hearing was not necessary because biomechanical engineering is an accepted scientific theory, no proper foundation was laid for the defense expert’s (Toosi’s) testimony:

The court properly relied upon a decision of this Court and a decision of the Appellate Term, First Department, in determining that biomechanical engineering is a scientific theory accepted in the field … . …

Separate and distinct from the Frye inquiry is the ” admissibility question applied to all evidence—whether there is a proper foundation—to determine whether the accepted methods were appropriately employed in a particular case'” … . “The question is whether the expert’s opinion sufficiently relates to existing data or is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert” … . Here, the defendant failed to establish that Toosi’s opinions related to existing data and were the result of properly applied accepted methodology … . Thus, Toosi’s testimony should have been precluded. Guerra v Ditta, 2020 NY Slip Op 03771, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HAD DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WHICH IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action. Plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 and did not demonstrate defendant defaulted. The decision illustrates the level of strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 which is required by the courts:

The version of RPAPL 1304(2) as it existed at that time required that the 90-day notice provide a list of five housing counseling agencies “that serve the region where the borrower resides.” …

… Here, the notice prepared by the plaintiff listed, as one of the required five housing counseling agencies, an agency located more than 300 miles away from the defendants’ residence. … [I]t is the plaintiff’s burden, on its motion for summary judgment, to demonstrate its strict compliance with the applicable provisions of RPAPL 1304. By failing to submit evidence that the Watertown agency served the region wherein the defendants resided, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and thus its motion for such relief should have been denied … . …

Additionally, the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff for the purpose of demonstrating that it properly served its 90-day notice did not specify that the notice was served in an envelope that was separate from any other mailing or notice (see RPAPL 1304 [2]). While the plaintiff attempted to remedy this deficiency in its reply papers, even assuming that its reply affidavit may properly be considered … , that affidavit contained only a conclusory assertion that the mailing was done in a separate envelope, with no assertion by the affiant that she had any personal knowledge of the actual mailing or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, the defendants’ default in payment. While the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff made the requisite showing that the affiant was familiar with the plaintiff’s recordkeeping practices and procedures with respect to the defendants’ payment history, the affiant failed to submit any business record substantiating the alleged default. Conclusory affidavits lacking a factual basis are without evidentiary value … . USBank N.A. v Haliotis, 2020 NY Slip Op 03819, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

,

PROPER FOUNDATION FOR EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE FINDING THAT THE TESTED SUBSTANCES CONTAINED COCAINE WAS NOT LAID AND THE TESTIMONY WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE; CONVICTIONS ON TWO DRUG-POSSESSION COUNTS REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on two drug possession counts, determined the People did not provide a proper foundation for the testimony of two experts who tested the substances alleged to contain cocaine:

The opinion testimony by these experts was inadmissible, because the People failed to lay a foundation for the competence of the testimony. “[A]n expert who tests a substance for the presence of cocaine may not rely solely upon a test involving a comparison of the substance at issue to a known standard when the accuracy of the known standard is not established” … . Here, the evidence adduced at trial reflected that Lin and Lopez each tested the purity of a sample of the substance recovered from the defendant by using a test which relied upon a comparison to a known standard. The People failed to introduce any direct evidence as to the accuracy of the standard used for comparison. Although an expert’s testimony that a substance contains cocaine is admissible when it is “not based solely upon comparative tests using a known standard but also on a series of other tests not involving known standards” … , here, the People failed to establish that either Lin or Lopez performed any other tests that did not involve comparison to a known standard. Thus, the Supreme Court should not have permitted their testimony, and a new trial is required on the counts charging criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree … . People v Campbell, 2020 NY Slip Op 03800, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 AND 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff loan services company (Aurora/Nationstar) did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 13O4 and 1306. Therefore, Aurora’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The court, noting that “lack of notice’ may be raised at any time, explained defendant did not waive the “lack of notice” defense because defendant denied the plaintiff’s complaint-allegations of compliance and raised the issue in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Second Department further found defendant was not entitled to summary judgment because “lack of notice” was not demonstrated as a matter of law. The decision provides a valuable explanation of the proof requirements for compliance with RPAPL 1304 and 1306:

In support of its motions, Aurora submitted the affidavit of Jerrell Menyweather, a document execution specialist employed by Nationstar, along with a copy of a 90-day notice addressed to the defendant, and a proof of filing statement pursuant to RPAPL 1306 from the New York State Banking Department. Although Menyweather stated in the affidavit that the RPAPL notices were sent to the defendant at her last known address and the subject property, Menyweather did not have personal knowledge of the mailing, and Aurora failed to provide any documents to prove that the notices were actually mailed … . Aurora 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, Menyweather did not aver that he was familiar with Aurora’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 … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Matles, 2020 NY Slip Op 03793, 7-8-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO DENY THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A RODRIGUEZ HEARING BASED UPON THE PROSECUTOR’S ASSERTION THE COMPLAINANT AND THE DEFENDANT KNEW EACH OTHER, THE TRIAL TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE COMPLAINANT AND DEFENDANT IN FACT KNEW EACH OTHER; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRES THAT THE IDENTIFICATION ISSUE BE RESOLVED BEFORE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed defendant’s conviction over a substantive dissent. Arguing against a Wade hearing addressing the suggestiveness of the complainant’s identification of the defendant from single photograph displays, the prosecutor told the judge the complainant and the defendant knew each other and the identification procedures were merely confirmatory. Defendant denied knowing the complainant and requested a Rodriguez hearing. The judge denied the request based on the People’s assertion the identification procedures were confirmatory. The denial of the Rodriguez hearing was deemed to be error, but the majority concluded the hearing was not necessary because the trial testimony demonstrated the complainant knew the defendant. The dissent argued the Court of Appeals, in the Rodriguez case, required resolution of the identification issue before trial:

The Supreme Court erred in relying on the People’s mere assurances of familiarity in denying the defendant’s pretrial request for a Rodriguez hearing  … . Nevertheless, a hearing with regard to the single-photograph identifications made by the complainant soon after the shooting was ultimately unnecessary inasmuch as the complainant’s trial testimony demonstrated that he was sufficiently familiar with the defendant, whom he knew and referred to by the defendant’s street name,”Chulo,” such that the complainant’s identification of the defendant from the photo display was merely confirmatory … . * * * When a crime has been committed by a . . . long-time acquaintance of a witness there is little or no risk that comments by the police, however suggestive, will lead the witness to identify the wrong person'” … . Any suggestiveness of the initial photo identification procedure or the purported taint thereafter was not a concern since ” the protagonists are known to one another'” … . ​People v Carmona, 2020 NY Slip Op 03672, Second Dept 7-1-20

 

, ,

THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER BUS DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR CAUSING SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY TO A PEDESTRIAN WHILE FAILING TO EXERCISE DUE CARE; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the proof before the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was sufficient to find that petitioner bus driver caused serious physical injury to a pedestrian warranting suspension of petitioner’s driver’s license for six months:

In November 2014, a New York City Transit bus driven by petitioner struck the victim, an 88-year-old pedestrian. At the time of the accident, the victim was in a marked crosswalk with the right of way, and petitioner was making a right turn. The bus ran “over [the victim’s] legs . . . with the front passenger’s side tire,” pinning him under the bus. The victim was transported to the hospital, where he died less than four weeks later.

A summons was issued to petitioner alleging that he caused serious physical injury to a pedestrian while failing to exercise due care (see VTL § 1146 [c]). The Administrative Law Judge found that the charge was established by clear and convincing evidence. The DMV’s Traffic Violations Bureau Appeal Board affirmed, and petitioner’s license was suspended for six months (see VTL § 510 [2] [b] [xiv]). …

On this record, the agency’s determination — that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that petitioner caused serious physical injury while failing to exercise due care in violation of VTL § 1146 (c) — is supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Seon v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2020 NY Slip Op 03564, CtApp 6-25-20

SUMMARY OF FIRST DEPARTMENT DECISION REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ON JUNE 25, 2020

APPLYING THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENTIARY STANDARD, THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES’ (DMV’S) SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER BUS DRIVER’S LICENSE BASED UPON STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF THE EXTENT OF THE INJURY OR ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURY AND THE PEDESTRIAN’S DEATH A MONTH LATER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND LICENSE REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, annulling the determination of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the record did not support the suspension of petitioner-bus-driver’s license for a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1146. The court noted that the standard of proof in the DMV hearing is “clear and convincing” and the standard of proof in the instant Article 78 proceeding is “substantial evidence.” Effectively, therefore, the “clear and convincing” standard applies to the Article 78. Here, on a dark and rainy night, an 88-year-old pedestrian apparently came into contact with the bus in the crosswalk when the bus was turning. The man died a month later. In the opinion of the majority, the hearing evidence did not demonstrate how seriously the man was injured by the bus, or a connection between any injury and the man’s death a month later:

Here, DMV was required to establish that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(c)(1), which imposes liability on “[a] driver of a motor vehicle who causes serious physical injury as defined in article ten of the penal law to a pedestrian or bicyclist while failing to exercise due care.” The referenced definition of “serious physical injury” includes “physical injury . . . which causes death,” … which is presumably the basis for the charge against petitioner since he was not issued a summons until after the pedestrian died in the hospital. Thus, DMV was required to present clear and convincing evidence of both failure to exercise care and that such failure led to the pedestrian’s demise. * * *

To be sure, one could speculate, as does the dissent, that the pedestrian suffered a “serious physical injury.” But to engage in speculation would be to ignore the underlying standard of clear and convincing evidence, which even the dissent agrees applied in the administrative proceeding and is relevant to our review. “Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that satisfies the factfinder that it is highly probable that what is claimed actually happened . . . and it is evidence that is neither equivocal nor open to opposing presumptions”… . Given that standard, and the remarkable lack of compelling evidence before us, we would be abdicating our role were we simply to defer to the conclusions drawn by the Administrative Law Judge, and raising a serious question as to the very purpose of having any appellate review in this matter. Matter of Seon v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2018 NY Slip Op 02240, First Dept 3-29-18

 

, ,

DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT BOTH DRIVERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE INTERSECTION WHERE THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPER SIGNAGE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT; THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ expert raised a question of fact whether proper signage at the intersection where the traffic accident occurred could have prevented the collision. The fact that both drivers were familiar with the intersection did not require that the town’s motion for summary judgment be granted (as Supreme Court had found):

“As a general rule, the question of proximate cause is to be decided by the finder of fact,” but it may be decided as a matter of law “where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts” … . Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the Town submitted evidence revealing that the drivers had some familiarity with the intersection, together with expert proof that the existing markings and traffic control devices were appropriate and consistent with applicable design standards. However, plaintiffs countered the Town’s showing with evidence that additional devices, such as a stop sign and painted stop bar, as well as pavement markings indicating the proper turning radius, were required for the subject intersection by applicable design standards; plaintiffs’ expert opined that the absence of such markings and devices was a substantial contributing factor to this collision. Notably, “a disagreement . . . between experts merely creates a question of credibility to be resolved by the finder of fact” … . Upon review, we do not find the opinions expressed by plaintiffs’ expert in this matter to be lacking in either substance or foundation … . O’Keefe v Wohl, 2020 NY Slip Op 03579, Third Dept 6-25-20

 

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