You are here: / Evidence
, ,

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s (PennyMac’s) motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not present sufficient proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [A]lthough Somarriba and Carras-Gomez “stated in [their] affidavit[s] that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened” … . Instead, the plaintiff submitted a certificate of bulk mailing, which did not identify any particular mailing, and two internal reports generated by the plaintiff, which appear to demonstrate that some unidentified pieces of mail were sent to the borrower’s address … . Additionally, no foundation was laid for the admission of these business records, as neither Somarriba nor Carras-Gomez attested that they had personal knowledge of the plaintiff’s business practices and procedures, or that the plaintiff’s records were incorporated into PennyMac’s own records or routinely relied upon by PennyMac in its business … . Finally, the plaintiff failed, alternatively, to provide proof of actual mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice, to provide 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” … . Neither Somarriba nor Carras-Gomez averred that they had personal knowledge of any such standard office mailing procedure of the plaintiff. PennyMac Corp. v Khan, 2019 NY Slip Op 09278, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

, ,

SPANISH-LANGUAGE CONVICTION RECORDS FROM PUERTO RICO, WHICH WERE NOT TRANSLATED, WERE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE DEFENDANT TO BE A SEX OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating the risk level determination, determined the proof defendant was a sex offender was insufficient. The documents relating to a conviction in Puerto Rico were in Spanish and were not translated:

We agree with defendant that, in making its determination that defendant is a sex offender, the Board erred in relying on documents in Spanish that were not accompanied by an English translation (see generally CPLR 2101 [b]). Upon defendant’s objection during the SORA hearing to the Board’s determination, no additional documents were submitted to support the Board’s determination. Thus, there is no English-translated document stating the offense of which defendant was convicted in Puerto Rico, and therefore there is no competent evidence to support the Board’s determination that defendant was convicted of a felony offense in another jurisdiction … . In addition, the purported sex offender registration form showing that defendant was required to register in Puerto Rico is entirely in Spanish, and thus there is no competent evidence to support the Board’s determination that defendant was required to register as a sex offender in Puerto Rico … . People v Ramos, 2019 NY Slip Op 09153, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

,

FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENSE ABOUT A SECOND EYEWITNESS TO THE SHOOTING WAS A REVERSIBLE BRADY VIOLATION, THE MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, granted defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction and ordered a new trial, based upon the People’s failure to notify the defense of a second eyewitness to the shooting (a Brady violation). The opinion is too detailed factually and too comprehensive legally to fully summarize here:

Several months after the trial concluded, the assistant district attorney who tried the case received an inter-office email attaching a report from a detective who had interviewed an eyewitness to the shooting. The ADA and another prosecutor had themselves interviewed the witness before the trial, having learned that a man who had been arrested for a drug sale near the Polo Grounds told a detective that he had seen the Philips shooting. The prosecutors spoke to the eyewitness in the detective’s presence, and no one took notes. Both prosecutors recalled only that the witness said he saw a man in brown clothes go down the 110 step-staircase, shoot Phillips, and go back up the steps. The ADA concluded that the statement was “cumulative” and did not disclose it to the defense. However, after receiving the email, he notified defendant’s trial counsel about the witness, and attached the report, which he stated he had not known had ever been created. * * *

Defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that it was obtained in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights, including his rights under Brady. Defendant noted that the prosecution failed to disclose that it had interviewed a second eyewitness two years before trial and failed to disclose the report. Defendant’s trial lawyer submitted an affirmation in which he explained how timely disclosure of the information would have affected his preparation of the defense, including a misidentification defense. His investigator also submitted an affidavit in which he stated that timely disclosure would have been valuable because the statement contained “several strong leads.” For example, he would have spoken to the eyewitness before his memory faded or he became uncooperative, and he would have located the other two people who were sitting with the eyewitness. In addition, the rumor that Phillips robbed Social Security recipients was another lead that would have caused the investigator to seek out people not otherwise on the defense “radar” for potential leads about Phillips or those who wanted to kill him. People v McGhee, 2019 NY Slip Op 09116, First Dept 12-19-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PURSUED AND DETAINED BASED UPON HIS DRINKING FROM A CONTAINER IN A PAPER BAG AND RUNNING INSIDE A NEARBY BUILDING; THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD WAS PROPERLY INFERRED FROM DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF BOTH REAL AND COUNTERFEIT BILLS, KEPT SEPARATELY ON HIS PERSON (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined defendant was properly pursued and detained after a police officer saw him on the street drinking from a container inside a paper bag and then saw him run inside a nearby building as the officer approached. The Court further determined the intent to defraud could be inferred from the defendant’s possession of counterfeit bills. The defendant had both counterfeit and real money on his person, kept separately. The issues were succinctly described in the dissent:

From the dissent:

The majority lauds the hot pursuit and forcible detention of Clinton Britt, a man drinking a Lime-A-Rita&TLRtrade; wrapped in a brown paper bag in Times Square shortly before midnight, and his subsequent conviction for intending to spend counterfeit money absent any indication that he attempted or planned to use it, simply because it was found rubber-banded separately from his real money when he was searched upon arrest. Both are mistakes.

The first — let’s chase and physically detain people drinking from unseen containers in brown paper bags — is perhaps understandable because of the tremendous difficulty inherent in the mis-application of our De Bour test in many real-world situations. The sad consequence of that mistake is a regression from the legislative and prosecutorial progress eschewing policing based on stereotypes, returning us to the world of broken windows — where police pursue quality of life violations that disproportionately affect the poor (not merely those committing the infractions, but their families, neighbors and communities).

The second — let’s equate the separation of real from counterfeit money with the intent to defraud — is inexplicable. It overturns our clear holding in People v Bailey (13 NY3d 67 [2009]), by contravening the most fundamental proposition of evidence: a fact is not evidence unless it makes the disputed issue more likely to be true than it otherwise would be. Put simply, if you knew you had counterfeit money on your person and did not want to use it, you would keep it separate from your real money. That [defendant] kept his real and fake money separate says nothing about his intent to use it to defraud, deceive or injure anyone, which is a statutory requirement under Penal Law § 170.30. People v Britt, 2019 NY Slip Op 09060, CtApp 12-19-19

 

,

THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY REOPENING THE SUPPRESSION HEARING AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD RESTED TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO PRESENT AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS; THE “ONE FULL OPPORTUNITY” DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY IN THE “PRE-RULING” STAGE OF A SUPPRESSION HEARING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, held the suppression court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the People to reopen the suppression hearing to present another witness after the People had rested. The court subsequently denied the motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals framed the issue around the “one full opportunity” rule which precludes reopening a hearing in other contexts and decided not to extend the rule to the “”pre-ruling” stage of a suppression hearing:

In Havelka [45 NY2d 636], we applied the “one full opportunity” rule to a holding by an appellate court overturning the decision of the suppression court. In Kevin W [22 NY3d 287}. we applied the same rule to the suppression court’s decision to reopen the hearing after its ruling on the merits of the motion. Defendant now asks us to apply the rule at a point still earlier in the process, similarly restricting the suppression court’s discretion before any decision is made. This we decline to do.

A basic concern underlying both Havelka and Kevin W. is finality, described as the “haunt[ing] . . . specter of renewed proceedings” after the defendant initially has prevailed … . We explained in Havelka that allowing the People to present additional evidence at a new hearing would render success at the original suppression hearing “nearly meaningless” … . The People, we said, should not get “a second chance to succeed where once they tried and failed” … . However, that concern is absent where no decision on the motion has been rendered by the hearing court: no victory will be rendered “nearly meaningless.”

The second issue of concern weighing in favor of the “one full opportunity” rule — the risk of improperly tailored testimony at the reopened proceedings — is significantly lower where the People do not have a formal decision from either an appellate court or the hearing court. People v Cook, 2019 NY Slip Op 09059, CtApp 12-19-19

 

, ,

MORTGAGE COMPANY’S PROOF OF STANDING AND MAILING OF RPAPL 1304 NOTICE INSUFFICIENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not provide sufficient evidence of standing and mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice in this foreclosure proceeding:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it had standing to commence this action. In support of its motion, the plaintiff relied on the affidavit of its Document Execution Specialist, Jerrell Menyweather, who attested that the plaintiff received physical delivery of the original note on July 6, 2007, and was in possession and the holder of the note, prior to commencement of the action … . While Menyweather attested that his knowledge was based on business records maintained by the plaintiff, he failed to annex the business records that he referred to in his affidavit. Thus, his affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value on this issue of the plaintiff’s standing … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Although Menyweather stated in the affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were sent to certain of the defendants via certified and first-class mail, the plaintiff failed to provide any documents to prove that the mailing actually took place. Moreover, “[w]hile mailing may be proved by documents meeting the requirements of the business records exception to the rule against hearsay,” Menyweather “did not make the requisite showing that he was familiar with the 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” … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Jean-Baptiste, 2019 NY Slip Op 09011, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

,

EVIDENCE PETITIONER HAD MADE A THREAT TO A PRISON EMPLOYEE WAS INSUFFICIENT, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, annulling the determination, held that the evidence petitioner had made a threat was insufficient:

… [W]e agree with the petitioner that the determination that he was guilty of violating prison disciplinary rule 102.10 was not supported by substantial evidence. In reviewing a prison disciplinary determination, a court’s review of the factual findings is limited to ascertaining whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803[4] …). Substantial evidence is “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … .

Prison disciplinary rule 102.10 provides that “[a]n inmate shall not, under any circumstances, make any threat, spoken, in writing, or by gesture” (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][3][i]). Here, the misbehavior report and the hearing testimony merely demonstrated that the petitioner “became loud and argumentative” when he was denied permission to hold a certain event in his capacity as the president of a certain prison inmate organization. The evidence merely showed that the petitioner was upset, and the statement by the prison’s Deputy Superintendent of Programs that she felt “intimidated,” and that the petitioner “stared at [her] and in a threatening manner left the area,” without more, was insufficient to establish that the petitioner actually made a threat against her. Matter of Mays v Early, 2019 NY Slip Op 09004, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, ,

COURT-APPROVED CUSTODY AND PARENTAL ACCESS STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED WITHOUT A HEARING; UPON REMITTAL AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD SHOULD BE APPOINTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have modified a court-approved stipulation relating to custody and parental access without a hearing. And the Second Department ordered that an attorney for the child be appointed upon remittal:

“Modification of a court-approved stipulation setting forth terms of custody or [parental access] is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the best interests and welfare of the child” … . The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances  … . “Where . . . facts essential to the best interests analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a hearing is required” … .

In view of the parties’ disputed factual allegations in this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to modify the stipulation of custody so as to award him final decision-making authority with respect to the child without a hearing to determine whether an award of final decision-making authority to the plaintiff was in the best interests of the child … . Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the interests of the child should be independently represented … . Walter v Walter, 2019 NY Slip Op 09056, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 DID NOT APPLY AND DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 did not apply and did not demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action. The bank did not show that the underlying loan was not a “home loan,” and the proof of mailing of the notice was insufficient:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to show, prima facie, that the RPAPL 1304 90-day notice requirement was inapplicable because the loan was not a “home loan” … .​

RPAPL 1304 requires the 90-day notice to be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower (see RPAPL 1304[2]). “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 plaintiff failed to provide proof of the actual mailing, or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by an individual with personal knowledge of that procedure. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Sadique, 2019 NY Slip Op 09054, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ASSAULTED BY ANOTHER PATIENT IN DEFENDANT LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY; THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE ASSAILANT, WHO WAS NOT A PARTY, WERE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE; THE INCIDENT REPORTS PERTAINING TO THE ASSAULT WERE NOT SHOWN BY THE DEFENDANT TO BE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND WERE THEREFORE DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the assailant’s medical records were privileged, but any incident reports pertaining to the assault were not. Plaintiff alleged she was attacked while a long-term resident of defendant long-term health care facility. The assailant in this third-party assault action was not made a party:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which sought disclosure of the assailant’s admission chart. The assailant is not a party to the action, his medical records were subject to the physician-patient privilege, and he has not waived that privilege … .

However, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which sought disclosure of all incident reports related to the assault. Pursuant to Education Law § 6527(3), certain documents generated in connection with the “performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function,” or which are “required by the Department of Health pursuant to Public Health Law § 2805-l,” are generally not discoverable … . The defendant, as the party seeking to invoke the privilege, has the burden of demonstrating that the documents sought were prepared in accordance with the relevant statutes … . Here, the defendant merely asserted that a privilege applied to the requested documents without making any showing as to why the privilege attached. Accordingly, the incident reports related to the assault were subject to disclosure. DeLeon v Nassau Health Care Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08989, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

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