You are here: / Evidence
, ,

IN THIS DESIGN DEFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, THE LOSS OF THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT-MANUFACTURER FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant-manufacturer (Doka) of an allegedly defective ratchet was not entitled to dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff could not produce the ratchet (spoliation). The ratchet was used to move heavy concrete forms into place along a track. Allegedly the ratchets broke when extra pressure was placed on them when the forms became “bound” on the track. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when he used his foot to increase the pressure on the ratchet when the form became bound. Because this was a design-defect case, and because the ratchets allegedly had broken before under similar circumstance, the defendant-manufacturer could present a defense and, therefore, the loss of the ratchet did not warrant dismissal of the complaint:

In cases like this, where the claim is based on a design defect (as opposed to a manufacturing defect), the absence of the product is not necessarily fatal to the defendant. As this Court has observed, a product’s design “possibly might be evaluated and the defect proved circumstantially” … . Circumstantial evidence could, one would imagine, be the testimony of someone involved in the design process, and plans or photographs of the product before it entered the stream of commerce. It could also, assuming that the missing product was one of multiple units manufactured using the same design, be another one of those units. * * *

Doka does not, in any meaningful way, argue why its inability to inspect the exact ratchet that plaintiff was using would prevent it from defending against the products liability claim. Rossi v Doka USA, Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 02098, First Dept 3-26-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT PRESENT NON-HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive decision explaining the relevant issues and analysis in some depth, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304  did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of mailing or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly mailed notice to the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, the plaintiff relied on an affidavit of Rashad Blanchard, who was employed as a loan analyst by the parent company of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, and copies of the purported notices. The plaintiff submitted only one letter that purported to constitute the statutorily required 90-day notice of default … . Although the letter contained the statement “sent via certified mail,” with a 20-digit number below it, no receipt or corresponding document issued by the United States Postal Service was submitted proving that the letter was actually sent by certified mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. The plaintiff also failed to submit any documentary evidence that notice was sent by first-class mail. Further, Blanchard did not aver that the notice was sent in the manner required pursuant to RPAPL 1304, i.e., by certified mail and first-class mail. Moreover, since he did not aver that he personally mailed the notice, or that he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., the entity that purportedly sent the notices, he did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . * * *

[Vice President] Reyes’s affidavit failed to establish a sufficient foundation for the admission of a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518(a) because, although he recited that the records upon which he relied were “regularly maintained by [the plaintiff] in the ordinary course of its business,” he “did not indicate that they were made by their author (or authors, whoever they might be) pursuant to an established procedure for the routine, habitual, systematic making of records that would qualify them as trustworthy accounts,” or that they “were the records regularly relied on in the business” … . Reyes also failed to indicate “that the record [was] made at or about the time of the event being recorded—essentially, that recollection [was] fairly accurate and the habit or routine of making the entries assured” … . …

… .[T]o the extent that Reyes’s purported knowledge of the date the plaintiff received the original note was based upon his review of unidentified business records maintained by the plaintiff, “[his] affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value” … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Dennis, 2020 NY Slip Op 02039, Second Dept 3-25-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted and explained the criteria:

” A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 may be granted where the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the [trier of fact] could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party'” … . “In considering such a motion, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in light most favorable to the nonmovant'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court, in announcing its decision, stated that it expressly considered and relied on the defendants’ evidence. This was error, as it was improper for the court to consider, on a motion for a directed verdict made before the moving party had rested and the opposing party had an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, the evidence introduced by the moving party … .

Thus, in the context of a motion for a directed verdict, the Supreme Court should not have accorded the defendants’ expert’s testimony more weight than that of the plaintiff’s expert. In determining a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court “must not engage in a weighing of the evidence, nor may it direct a verdict where the facts are in dispute, or where different inferences may be drawn or the credibility of witnesses is in question” … . Boriello v Loconte, 2020 NY Slip Op 02035, Second Dept 3-25-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE DUTY OF CARE AND KNOWLEDGE ELEMENTS OF A SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant property owner did not demonstrate it was an out-of-possession landlord. And defendants failed to eliminate questions of fact re: several elements of a slip and fall action:

… [T]he defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they had a duty to maintain in a reasonably safe condition the area of the parking lot where the plaintiff allegedly slipped … . They further failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they, or anyone on their behalf, caused, created, or exacerbated the ice condition upon which the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell … , and whether they lacked constructive notice of the alleged ice condition … . Pinck-Jafri v Marsh Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02082, Second Dept 3-25-30

 

, ,

CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION ARISING FROM A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a two-justice dissent, determined the conviction for criminally negligence homicide was against the weight of the evidence. The passenger in defendant’s car was killed when defendant’s car went off the road, apparently after colliding with other cars defendant was attempting to pass. The decision described all of the witness’s testimony in detail and concluded the conflicting testimony was not a sufficient basis for a conviction:

“A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.10). A person acts with criminal negligence when “he [or she] fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such [a] circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” (Penal Law § 15.05[4]).

The defendant’s conduct must rise to a level of carelessness where its “seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s . . . sense of right and wrong” … . Moreover, the conduct must create the risk, rather than simply not perceive the risk … .

In cases concerning charges of criminally negligent homicide arising out of automobile accidents involving excess rates of speed, “it takes some additional affirmative act by the defendant to transform speeding into dangerous speeding” … .

Here, the People failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant “fail[ed] to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk” (Penal Law § 15.05[4]) which caused the death of his passenger. People v Derival, 2020 NY Slip Op 02072, Second Dept 3-25-20

 

,

MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY AWARDING HER SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined there was sufficient evidence of a change of circumstances to award mother sole custody of the children:

… [T]he Family Court’s determination, in effect, that there had been no change in circumstances requiring a transfer of legal custody to the mother and a modification of the father’s parental access lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record … . The record reflects that the children’s relationship with the father has deteriorated since the issuance of the custody order … , that the father had threatened to strike the children with a belt, and that the father denigrated the mother in the presence of the children … . Moreover, the children, who were 11 and 13 years old at the time of the hearing, indicated a strong preference to reside with the mother … . Matter of Georgiou-Ely v Ely, 2020 NY Slip Op 02049, Second Dept 3-25-20

 

,

NON-MANDATORY STANDARDS FOR THE GAP BETWEEN A SUBWAY TRAIN AND THE PLATFORM PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER THE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR GAP-RELATED ACCIDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, ordering a new trial, in a brief memorandum with no description of the facts, determined evidence of prior accidents involving the gap between the subway train and the platform should not have been admitted because there was no showing the conditions were the same. However the evidence of the non-mandatory gap standards were properly admitted:

In these circumstances, the trial court properly admitted plaintiff’s expert testimony regarding non-mandatory gap standards promulgated by the American Public Transit Association and the Public Transportation Safety Board … . However, Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law by admitting evidence of prior accidents at New York City subway stations involving the gap between the train car and platform in the absence of a showing that the relevant conditions of those accidents were substantially the same as plaintiff’s accident … . Daniels v New York City Tr. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 02027, CtApp 3-24-20

 

, ,

TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THE ADMISSION OF DNA PROFILES WAS HEARSAY WHICH VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a concurrence, determined the testimony which formed the basis for the admission in evidence of DNA profiles was hearsay which violated the Confrontation Clause:

In People v John, we held that, when confronted with testimonial DNA evidence at trial, a defendant is entitled to cross-examine “an analyst who witnessed, performed or supervised the generation of defendant’s DNA profile, or who used his or her independent analysis on the raw data” (27 NY3d 294, 315 [2016]). In People v Austin, we reiterated that a testifying analyst who did not participate in the generation of a testimonial DNA profile satisfies the Confrontation Clause’s requirements only if the analyst “used his or her independent analysis on the raw data to arrive at his or her own conclusions” (30 NY3d 98, 105 [2017] … ). The records before us do not establish that the testifying analyst had such a role in either case. Accordingly, because the analyst’s hearsay testimony as to the DNA profiles developed from the post-arrest buccal swabs “easily satisfies the primary purpose test” for determining whether evidence is testimonial … , we conclude that her testimony and the admission of those DNA profiles into evidence, over defendants’ objections, violated defendants’ confrontation rights. People v Tsintzelis, 2020 NY Slip Op 02026, CtApp 3-24-20

 

, ,

AN ENTRY IN THE CASE SUMMARY ALONE IS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF POINTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s risk level, determined that an entry in the case summary alone is not sufficient to justify an assessment of points:

We agree with defendant that the People failed to prove by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that he had committed a continuing course of sexual misconduct, i.e., risk factor 4 on the risk assessment instrument (RAI) … . The sole evidence presented by the People in support of that risk factor was the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. At the SORA hearing, however, defendant specifically denied the allegation within the case summary that he engaged in a continuing course of sexual misconduct, and instead testified that he engaged in one instance only. Indeed, it is undisputed that defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of rape in the third degree … stemming from a specific instance of intercourse that occurred on one specified day. We conclude that “the case summary alone is not sufficient to satisfy the People’s burden of proving the risk level assessment by clear and convincing evidence where, as here, defendant contested the factual allegations related to [the] risk factor” … . People v Maund, 2020 NY Slip Op 02011, Fourth Dept 3-20-20

 

, ,

BECAUSE DEFENDANT INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS NOT IN CUSTODY HE COULD VALIDLY WITHDRAW HIS REQUEST WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant invoked his right to counsel when he was not in custody and therefore defendant could validly withdraw his request for counsel without the presence of counsel:

The Court of Appeals has stated that a defendant who asserts his or her right to counsel while out of custody may later withdraw that assertion without an attorney present and speak to law enforcement agents … . A hearing court may infer that a defendant has withdrawn a request for counsel when the defendant’s conduct unambiguously establishes such a withdrawal, which requires consideration of all relevant factors, including “whether defendant was fully advised of his or her constitutional rights before invoking the right to counsel and subsequently waiving it, whether the defendant who has requested assistance earlier has initiated the further communication or conversation with the police . . . , and whether there has been a break in the interrogation after the defendant has asserted the need for counsel with a reasonable opportunity during the break for the suspect to contact an attorney” … . Here, defendant was repeatedly advised of his rights, including twice immediately before he resumed speaking with the police. Moreover, after an overnight break in questioning, defendant initiated the conversation with the police to inquire about taking a polygraph examination, and he provided his own transportation to the investigators’ office. Consequently, we conclude that the court properly determined that defendant withdrew his assertion of his right to counsel … . We reject defendant’s contention that a different result is required because he did not cause the break in the interrogation. The relevant consideration is not which party caused the break in the questioning, rather it is whether there was “a reasonable opportunity during the break for the suspect to contact an attorney” … , and in this case defendant had such an opportunity during the overnight break in questioning. People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 01981, Fourth Dept 3-20-20

 

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