You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE RULINGS IN THIS CUSTODY/PARENTAL ACCESS CASE, HEARINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this custody/parental access proceeding, determined Supreme Court should have conducted hearings because the evidence relied upon was insufficient. The Second Department further found there was insufficient evidence to support the sanctions imposed for allegedly frivolous conduct:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination (1) awarding the defendant sole legal custody of the parties’ child, (2) denying that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to direct therapeutic parental access with the child, (3) directing that parental access between the plaintiff and the child “shall take place in accordance with [the child’s] preferences,” and (4) granting the defendant’s motion for a restraining order prohibiting the plaintiff from interfering with the child’s life at school, without first conducting an evidentiary hearing … . …

Here, the record demonstrates unresolved factual issues so as to require a hearing on the issues of custody and parental access … . Moreover, in making its custody and parental access determination, the Supreme Court relied on the hearsay statements and conclusions of the forensic evaluator, whose opinions and credibility were untested by either party … . * * *

… [P]ursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, sanctions may be imposed against a party or the party’s attorney for frivolous conduct. Conduct is “frivolous if: (1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false” … . “A party seeking the imposition of a sanction or an award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) has the burden of proof” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff’s conduct during the underlying motion practice was frivolous … . Brin v Shady, 2020 NY Slip Op 00256, Second Dept 1-17-20

 

, , , ,

SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE TOO SEVERE, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDING PROOF OF COUNTERCLAIMS CENTRAL TO THE DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the verdict in favor of plaintiff employees, determined the sanctions imposed upon the employer (appellants) for a delayed response to discovery demands were too severe and ordered a new trial. The plaintiffs alleged appellants breached oral employment contracts. The appellants in their counterclaims alleged plaintiffs breached their fiduciary duty by violating Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and destroying and replacing handwritten notes about conversations with one of the appellants. The sanctions effectively prevented the appellants from demonstrating plaintiffs’ violation of SEC violations and destruction of evidence:

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, if a party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed . . . , the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just.” Although “[i]t is within the trial court’s discretion to determine the nature and degree of the penalty,” “[t]he sanction should be commensurate with the particular disobedience it is designed to punish, and go no further than that” … . Further, “the drastic remedy of striking a party’s pleading . . . for failure to comply with a discovery order is appropriate only where [it is] conclusively demonstrate[d] that the non-disclosure was willful, contumacious or due to bad faith” … .

Although the court here did not strike a pleading, its ruling could fairly be viewed as having done so, since the precluded evidence was critical to the fiduciary duty claims. Moreover, the court’s drastic sanctions were disproportionate to the alleged discovery malfeasance. It is unclear why a short continuance to give plaintiffs time to review the newly-produced documents would not have been a viable option, or why further curative instructions would not have sufficed. The record as a whole does not support a finding of willfulness or bad faith so as to justify the severe sanctions imposed … . No basis exists to indicate that this was anything other than a disagreement over the scope of discovery. Indeed, the court at trial stated that the alleged discovery omissions “appear[] not to have been in bad faith.” Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP, 2020 NY Slip Op 00230, First Dept 1-14-20

 

, , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING, DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; CRITERIA FOR PROVING EACH ISSUE EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because plaintiff’s standing, defendants’ default, and plaintiff’s compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 were not proven. The Second Department explained the proof requirements for each:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show that the note was properly endorsed and thus validly transferred to it … . * * *

… [T]he plaintiff also failed to submit admissible evidence of the defendants’ default in making the mortgage payments due under the terms of the note and mortgage … . * * *

The plaintiff also failed to proffer evidence establishing its compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. U.S. Bank N.A. v Moulton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00171, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PROTRUDING SCREW WHICH LACERATED PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S LEG; THE SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant school did not demonstrate it lacked constructive notice of the protruding screw which allegedly lacerated plaintiff-student’s leg as she walked by bleachers. Therefore the school’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

A property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, has a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition … . In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner, or a party in possession or control of real property, who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to have discovered and remedied it … . To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the moving party is required to offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last inspected or maintained prior to the plaintiff’s accident  … .

Here, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of the School District’s Director of Facilities, Roald Broas, who averred, in relevant part, that the School District did not maintain the subject bleachers, but instead “hire[d] subcontractors to perform inspections and maintenance of the bleachers.” Broas’s conclusory affidavit—which failed to identify the subcontractor who performed the last inspection or maintenance on the bleachers, as well as when and how such inspection or maintenance was performed—was insufficient to establish, prima facie, the School District’s lack of constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition … . Kelly v Roy C. Ketcham High Sch., 2020 NY Slip Op 00111, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff bank did not submit sufficient proof of standing to bring the action:

Where, as here, a plaintiff’s standing to commence a foreclosure action is placed in issue by a defendant, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove its standing to be entitled to relief … . A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that, when the action was commenced, it was either the holder or assignee of the underlying note … . Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident … . Here, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to summary judgment because the affidavit submitted in support of the motion was insufficient to establish standing … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Conrado, 2020 NY Slip Op 00103, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

,

SUPPORT MAGISTRATE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO VACATE MAINTENANCE ARREARS; THE FORMER HUSBAND DEMONSTRATED THE FORMER WIFE WAIVED HER RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS 16 YEARS BEFORE THE PETITION WAS BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the former husband’s (appellant’s) objection to the support magistrate’s order that appellant pay maintenance arrears should have been granted. The support magistrate had terminated the former wife’s (respondent’s) right to maintenance payments but held she did not have the authority to vacate the arrears. The Second Department held respondent had waiver her right to maintenance payments years before and appellant was not obligated to pay the arrears:

… [P]ursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(9)(b), a prior judgment or order as to maintenance may be modified or annulled after the accrual of such arrears where “the defaulting party shows good cause for failure to make an application for relief from the judgment or order directing payment prior to the accrual of such arrears” … . …

The appellant demonstrated that in June 2001, the respondent waived her right to receive maintenance payments … . “A valid waiver requires no more than the voluntary and intentional abandonment of a known right which, but for the waiver, would have been enforceable'” … . “It may arise by either an express agreement or by such conduct or failure to act as to evince an intent not to claim the purported advantage” … . Here, the evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that after the appellant stopped paying maintenance beginning in June 2001 pursuant to the parties’ alleged oral agreement, the respondent did not make any written demands or otherwise move to enforce the maintenance provision of the parties’ judgment of divorce for a period of more than 16 years. Although a waiver “is not created by negligence, oversight, or thoughtlessness, and cannot be inferred from mere silence” … , the respondent’s conduct evinced an intent by her to abandon her right to maintenance payments and supported the appellant’s claim that she had orally agreed to terminate his maintenance obligation in June 2001 … . Matter of Makris v Makris, 2020 NY Slip Op 00139, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE CHILD WAS 17 AND HAD A LONG STANDING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER’S HUSBAND, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO DISMISS MOTHER’S PETITION FOR GENETIC MARKER TESTING TO DETERMINE PATERNITY; THE CHILD WAS AWARE FROM A YOUNG AGE THAT THE PUTATIVE FATHER WAS THE CHILD’S BIOLOGICAL FATHER AND THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE PATERNITY PETITION WAS NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel should not have been applied to dismiss mother’s petition for a genetic marker test to determined paternity. The petition was brought when the child was 17 and the child was aware at a young age that the putative father was in fact the child’s biological father. The child had developed a parent-child relationship with mother’s husband, who had known the child since the child was two. The equitable estoppel doctrine is applied solely in the child’s best interests which were not shown to be detrimentally affected by the paternity petition:

As the party moving for dismissal of the petition, the putative father failed to establish that the child would suffer irreparable loss of status, destruction of his family image, or other harm to his physical or emotional well-being if a genetic marker test was ordered … . Here, the record reflects that the child was told by his mother and the husband at a young age that the putative father was his biological father. “Equitable estoppel is not used to deny the existence of a relationship, but rather to protect one” … . Absent any indication that the child’s relationship with the husband needed protection from a determination as to whether the putative father was the biological father, equitable estoppel was not available to the putative father as a remedy … . Thus, under the circumstances, any lack in diligence by the mother in pursuing her earlier petitions was not a basis to estop her from seeking to establish the putative father’s paternity … . Matter of Denise R.-D. v Julio R. P., 2020 NY Slip Op 00145, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

,

EVIDENCE SUPPORTED DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the evidence supported Family Court’s derivative neglect finding:

… [T]he evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that the mother’s verbal abuse of Hannah due to an untreated mental illness demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm to Samuel. Hannah testified that the mother threw things at her and instructed her brothers, including Samuel, to hit her when the mother became frustrated with her. According to Hannah, after these proceedings were commenced, the mother told Hannah that Hannah would be placed in a mental institution and raped in the petitioner’s custody, told Hannah that the mother would pretend Hannah was dead and burn Hannah’s clothes, and threatened to kill Hannah once the case was over. The mother’s conduct caused Hannah to fear the mother and her brothers. This evidence sufficiently supported the Family Court’s conclusion that the mother derivatively neglected Samuel, as it demonstrated that the mother had such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm to the well-being of Samuel … . Matter of Samuel A. R. (Soya R.), 2020 NY Slip Op 00144, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not demonstrate it had standing to bring the action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it had standing to commence the action. In support of its motion, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Melissa Gallio, the Vice President of Loan Documentation for the plaintiff. Gallio stated that her knowledge of this case was based upon her review of “the books and records” maintained by the plaintiff, and asserted that the plaintiff was “in possession of the Note and Mortgage” “[a]s of January 10, 2007.” However, Gallio’s assertions as to the contents of the records were inadmissible hearsay to the extent that the records she purported to describe were not submitted with her affidavit … . While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence …  , a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Springer, 2020 NY Slip Op 00176, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

, , , ,

THE TIP OF PLAINTIFF THIRD-GRADER’S FINGER WAS SEVERED WHEN A DOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING SLAMMED SHUT; THE DEFENDANT-SCHOOL’S (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S [DOE’S]) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, THE SCHOOL HAD NO NOTICE OF A PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR, SUPERVISION COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT, AND NYC IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT ON SCHOOL (DOE) PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant school (NYC Department of Education [DOE]) was entitled to summary judgment in this premises liability and negligent supervision action. Plaintiff third-grader alleged a door closed on his finger, severing the tip. The school demonstrated it had no notice of any problems with the door and that supervision could not have prevented the accident. The Second Department noted that the unsigned depositions were properly considered because they were submitted by the DOE and therefore were adopted as accurate, and further noted that, because the accident occurred on school property, the city (NYC) was not liable:

The unsigned deposition transcripts of the school’s custodial engineer and the injured plaintiff’s teacher, who testified on behalf of their employer, the DOE, were admissible under CPLR 3116(a) because the transcripts were submitted by the DOE and, therefore, were adopted as accurate … . …

The deposition testimony of the building’s custodial engineer established that he inspected the door at least twice per week before the accident. Moreover, the school principal provided evidence that a search of the school’s records revealed no “indication of any maintenance, repairs, work orders, or other issues reported” with respect to the door during the two-year time period prior to the accident. This evidence, together with evidence that the subject door was in regular use, including regular use by the infant plaintiff, was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the door was not defective … . …

When an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury … . E.W. v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00175, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

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