You are here: / Evidence
,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PRESENTING ONLY HEARSAY; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure proceeding did not prove it had standing, that the defendant was in default, or that the notice provisions of Real Property Actions and Proceedings La (RPAPL) 1304 were complied with. With respect to standing, the Second Department wrote:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted the note, which contains an undated endorsement in blank, as well as affidavits from two vice presidents of loan documents for its loan servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo). In both affidavits … each vice president stated that review Wells Fargo’s business records relating to the subject mortgage loan had confirmed that the plaintiff was in possession of the note prior to November 7, 2012. Neither one identified the documents reviewed or any basis for the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the note more than two years prior to the subject review of Wells Fargo’s files. The only document relevant to this issue attached to either affidavit was a copy of the note with the undated endorsement in blank. Under these circumstances, the affidavits constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked any probative value … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Campbell-Antoine, 2020 NY Slip Op 00578, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS CAN NOT RAISE A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant hospital’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The plaintiffs attempted to raise an evidentiary issue and theory of liability for the first time in opposition to the motion:

… [T]he plaintiffs improperly alleged, for the first time, a new theory claiming that other employees of the hospital were negligent in failing to properly administer Decadron and Heparin in accordance with the prescription of the plaintiff’s attending physician. ” A plaintiff cannot, for the first time in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, raise a new or materially different theory of recovery against a party from those pleaded in the complaint and the bill of particulars'” … . Bacalan v St. Vincents Catholic Med. Ctrs. of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 00561, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE NOT BEFORE IT; THE ORDER SETTLING A CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID WAGES AND OVERTIME SHOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED INVALID CERTAIN OPT-OUT STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND WERE NOT OTHERWISE BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this class action seeking unpaid wages and overtime, determined Supreme Court should not have. sua sponte, declared certain opt-out statements (opting out of the class action settlement) invalid because the issue was not raised by the plaintiff’s motion and the opt-out statements were not properly before the court:

Pursuant to the February 2018 order, all class members who did not opt out were permanently enjoined from asserting, pursuing, and/or seeking to reopen claims that were released pursuant to the settlement agreement. The February 2018 order also contained a handwritten provision declaring that “[t]he opt outs received on 1/26/18 from Lee Litigation Group are deemed invalid as they were dated prior to the Class Notice which was sent 12/27/17, and do not contain the required opt-out language pursuant to the Class-Notice ordered by this court on November 22, 2017.” Such relief was not sought in the motion filed by the plaintiffs nor was it contained in the proposed order submitted to the court by the plaintiffs’ counsel.  …

CPLR 908 provides that “[a] class action shall not be dismissed, discontinued, or compromised without the approval of the court,” and that “[n]otice of the proposed dismissal, discontinuance, or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs.” Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, declared invalid certain opt-out statements that were not part of the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion and which relief was not requested in the motion. “[A] court may grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, the court strayed from this principle … . The relief awarded by the court, sua sponte, in the handwritten provision in the February 2018 order is “dramatically unlike” the relief sought by the plaintiffs and was prejudicial to the appellants … . Moreover, the opt-out statements referred to in the February 2018 order were not among the exhibits submitted on the plaintiffs’ motion, and therefore were not properly before the court for consideration … . Robinson v Big City Yonkers, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00447, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

, ,

PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED BUT NEVER INDICTED OR CONVICTED DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the People’s application for an upward department was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Evidence defendant was charged but not indicted or convicted does not meet the clear and convincing standard:

A departure from the presumptive risk level is generally the exception, not the rule (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]). Where the People seek an upward departure, they must identify an aggravating factor that tends to establish a higher likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines, and prove the facts in support of the aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the People failed to prove the existence of an aggravating factor by clear and convincing evidence. In granting an upward departure, the court relied upon the defendant’s criminal history. However, the Guidelines account for an offender’s criminal history by assessing points under risk factor 9, and the defendant’s history here was not so extraordinary, extensive, or serious as to demonstrate that the assessment of those points was inadequate to capture his actual risk of reoffense and danger to the community . Further, an upward departure could not properly be based upon certain prior conduct of which the defendant was charged but either never indicted or never convicted, as the People’s evidence regarding that alleged conduct did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard … . People v Pittman, 2020 NY Slip Op 00443, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

, , ,

STATEMENT FROM PLAINTIFF’S OUT-OF-STATE EXPERT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; CPLR 2106 REQUIRES A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM A DENTIST LICENSED IN ANOTHER STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statement by a New Jersey dentist offered by the plaintiff in this dental malpractice action was not admissible because it was not in the form of a sworn affidavit. Therefore plaintiff did not raise a question of fact in opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment:

In opposition, the plaintiff submitted, among other things, the unsworn affirmation of Martin, who was licensed to practice dentistry in the State of New Jersey. Consequently, the out-of-state dentist’s statement did not constitute admissible evidence in that CPLR 2106 only authorizes attorneys, physicians, osteopaths, or dentists licensed in this state to utilize an affirmation in lieu of a sworn affidavit … . …

While an otherwise qualified expert physician, osteopath, or dentist, who is not licensed in this state, may submit a statement in support of or in opposition to a party’s position in a case at bar, that statement must be in the form of a sworn affidavit. CPLR 2106(a), which permits such a statement to be in the form of an affirmation, only applies to attorneys, physicians, osteopaths, and dentists licensed to practice in the State of New York. Nelson v Lighter, 2020 NY Slip Op 00420, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

,

IN PERHAPS THE FIRST APPELLATE-JUSTICE REVIEW OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER THE NEW PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 245.70, JUSTICE SCHEINKMAN FOUND THE PEOPLE DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY WITHHOLDING FROM THE DEFENSE THE IDENTITIES OF WITNESSES IN THIS RAPE/MURDER CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in one of the first decisions under the new discovery provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, after an expedited review by Justice Scheinkman pursuant to CPL 245.70, reversing Supreme Court, determined the protective order prohibiting defense access to the names, addresses and other identifying information of witnesses in this rape/murder case must be vacated without prejudice:

CPL 245.70(1) provides that, upon a showing of good cause by either party, the court may order that disclosure and inspection be denied, restricted, conditioned, or deferred, or make such order as appropriate. The court is now specifically permitted to condition discovery on making the information available only to counsel for the defendant (see CPL 245.70[1]). Alternatively, the court is permitted to order defense counsel, or persons employed by the attorney or appointed by the court to assist in the defense, not to disclose physical copies of discoverable documents to the defendant or anyone else, subject to the defendant being able to access redacted copies at a supervised location … . Should the court restrict access to discovery by the defendant personally, the court is required to inform the defendant on the record that counsel is not permitted by law to disclose the material or information to the defendant … . * * *

This case is one of the first under this new review procedure. The threshold question is what standard is the intermediate appellate justice to apply in performing the expedited review. The statute is silent on that subject.

This Justice accepts the proposition that where a pure question of law is concerned, the reviewing justice decides the question de novo … . Where, however, the issue involves balancing the defendant’s interest in obtaining information for defense purposes against concerns for witness safety and protection, the question is appropriately framed as whether the determination made by the trial court was a provident exercise of discretion … .

… [T]he People’s affirmation was unaccompanied by any affidavit from anyone with personal or direct knowledge of the relevant circumstances. … [W]hile alleging that a witness had been approached in person and by use of social media by “associates” of the defendant, the People did not set forth the name of any such associate, the relationship between the defendant and any associate, the date or approximate date of the alleged improper approach, or even a general description of the incident. While the use of social media is alleged, no screen shot or other depiction of the communication was provided. Further, the four corners of the affirmation do not contain the identity of the witnesses subject to the contact that caused concern. In short, the sealed affirmation submitted to justify the issuance of the protective order is vague, speculative, and conclusory. Under these circumstances, the affirmation was legally insufficient to support the granting of the relief sought. People v Beaton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00372, Second Dept 1-17-20

 

, ,

THE CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THE REDACTED PORTIONS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AND WERE INCULPATORY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the redacted statement of the co-defendant (Quaile) should not have been admitted in evidence because it was clear the redacted portions referred to the defendant and were inculpatory. Defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him was violated:

… [A]lthough Quaile’s statement was redacted, the jury was allowed to see where portions were blacked out and, given that the statement focused upon defendant’s arrest and the items found in the trailer, there were “obvious indications that it was altered to protect the identity of a specific person,” namely, defendant … . The redacted statement further advised the jury that defendant was Quaile’s live-in boyfriend, that she did not know what the plastic bottle and tissues found in their bedroom were used for, that she did not know how to make methamphetamine and that she “did not know the answers” to some of [a sheriff’s] questions at the trailer. When those comments are considered in tandem with the location of the blacked-out text in the statement, they can “only be read by the jury as inculpating defendant” by suggesting that he had the information and know-how that Quaile lacked and was involved in the charged crimes … . The admission of the statement therefore violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. In view of County Court’s failure “to give the critical limiting instruction that the jury should not consider the statement itself against anyone but” Quaile, as well as the lack of methamphetamine in the trailer or test results tying the items found in the trailer to methamphetamine production, we cannot say that the evidence against defendant is overwhelming or ” that ‘there is no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted [statement] contributed to the conviction'” … . People v Stone, 2020 NY Slip Op 00323, Third Dept 1-16-20

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the finding of neglect was not supported:

To establish neglect, a petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence, ‘first, that [the] child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship’ . ‘Actual or imminent danger of impairment is a prerequisite to a finding of neglect [which] ensures that the Family Court, in deciding whether to authorize state intervention, will focus on serious harm or potential harm to…  the child, not just on what might be deemed undesirable parental behavior’ … .

… The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing demonstrated that the mother and the child have a difficult relationship caused, in significant part, by the mother’s disapproval of the child’s behavior and the child’s unwillingness to abide by her mother’s rules, and the fact that the child had disciplinary problems at home and at school. Contrary to the court’s determination, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the mother ever struck the child at the relevant time. While the petition alleged that the mother, during an argument with the child … locked the child in a storage room, the child testified that she herself ran into the storage room, locked the door, and was not physically hurt. This argument arose when the mother told the child that she could not go out that night. At that time, when the neglect is alleged to have occurred, the child had been residing with the mother for only one day, having lived in foster care for approximately two years. Moreover, although the petition alleged that the mother was required to make alternate living arrangements for the child since the child could no longer reside with the maternal grandmother and refused to reside with the mother, the mother’s desire to have the child reside with her does not support a finding of neglect. Finally, the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing of the mother’s insults and name-calling, while certainly counterproductive and inappropriate, does not rise to the level of establishing a failure to provide the child with proper supervision or guardianship or demonstrate a resulting impairment or imminent danger of impairment of the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition … . Matter of Alexandra R.-M. (Sonia R.), 2020 NY Slip Op 00280, Second Dept 1-17-20

 

,

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AT THE CLOSE OF MOTHER’S CASE; REMITTED FOR A CONTINUED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s petition to modify the custody order should not have been dismissed at the close of the mother’s case:

A party seeking modification of an existing custody order must demonstrate that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child  … . The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances … . In deciding an application to dismiss a petition for failure to establish a prima facie case, the court must accept the petitioner’s evidence as true and afford the petitioner the benefit of every favorable inference that can reasonably be drawn therefrom  … .

Here, accepting the mother’s evidence as true and affording her the benefit of every favorable inference, the mother presented sufficient prima facie evidence of a change of circumstances which might warrant modification of custody in the best interests of the child … . There was evidence that the mother had moved from the country of Jamaica and was now living in Staten Island with her husband and family. Further, the mother presented evidence that the stepmother had used corporal punishment on the child between the date of the custody order and the filing of the mother’s petition, despite the fact that the custody order expressly prohibited the parties from using or tolerating the use of corporal punishment on the child. Matter of Campbell v Blair, 2020 NY Slip Op 00270, Second Dept 1-17-20

 

, ,

THE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action:

Wells Fargo failed to establish, prima facie, that it had possession of the note prior to the commencement of the action, and thus failed to establish that it had standing to foreclose the mortgage … . Wells Fargo did not attach a copy of the note and allonge to the complaint when the action was commenced to establish, prima facie, that it had possession of the note at that time … . Moreover, the affidavit of Wells Fargo’s vice president of loan documentation was insufficient to establish that Wells Fargo possessed the note at the time the action was commenced … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Elsman, 2020 NY Slip Op 00321, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

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