You are here: / Evidence
,

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

 

,

THE INDICTMENT CHARGING PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT ALLEGED DEFENDANT POSSESSED LESS THAN 25 GRAMS OF MARIJUANA WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF ‘DANGEROUS CONTRABAND,” AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the indictment, charging defendant with promoting prison contraband in the first degree was jurisdictionally defective because it alleged possession of less that 25 grams of marijuana:

Defendant asserts that the indictment is jurisdictionally defective based on the Court of Appeals’ decision in People v Finley (10 NY3d 647 [2003]). In that case, the Court held that the possession of a small amount of marihuana, specifically less than 25 grams, did not, absent aggravating circumstances, constitute dangerous contraband within the meaning of Penal Law §§ 205.00 (4) and 205.25 as is necessary to support the charge of promoting prison contraband in the first degree … . Defendant contends that there is no valid basis in the indictment for this charge because he possessed less than 25 grams of marihuana. The People concede that this is a jurisdictional defect warranting reversal of the judgment of conviction. In addition, defendant requests that the indictment be dismissed in its entirety, and the People consent to such relief given that defendant’s guilty plea satisfied both charges contained therein. Accordingly, based upon our review of the record, the case law and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the judgment of conviction must be reversed, thereby vacating the plea and sentence, and that the indictment must be dismissed in its entirety. People v Lawrence, 2020 NY Slip Op 00004, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DRUG, WHICH CAN DISSOLVE BLOOD CLOTS IN MINUTES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM A PULMONARY EMBOLISM UPON ADMISSION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case should not have been granted. The opinion is fact-specific and too detailed to fairly summarize here. The majority concluded there was a question of fact whether the administration of a drug, which defendants averred was contraindicated, would have saved decedent’s life. Decedent  was suffering from a pulmonary embolism upon admission. The staff waited hours for blood tests and an angiogram to confirm the diagnosis. A drug which can dissolve blood clots in minutes was not administered. Barry v Lee, 2019 NY Slip Op 09397, First Dept 12-26-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS OR LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS ICE-ON-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the ice-on-sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted:

[Defendants] failed to sustain their initial burden of demonstrating that they neither created nor had actual or constructive knowledge of the icy condition of the sidewalk … . Neither presented evidence concerning snow removal immediately prior to plaintiff’s accident and/or their lack of notice of the condition … . Burton v Khedouri Ezair Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 09379, First Dept 12-26-19

 

,

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the hearing and trial courts should have allowed cross-examination of a police officer about a lawsuit naming the officer:

Both the hearing and trial courts erred in denying defendant’s request to cross-examine a police officer regarding allegations of misconduct in a civil lawsuit in which it was claimed, among other things, that this particular officer arrested the plaintiff without suspicion of criminality and lodged false charges against him … . The civil complaint contained specific allegations of falsification by this officer that bore on his credibility at both the hearing and trial. At each proceeding, this officer was the only witness for the People. People v Burgess, 2019 NY Slip Op 09364, First Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

THE JURY WAS WRONGLY INSTRUCTED ON THE INFERENCE WHICH CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT THE LOCATION OF A BOUNDARY LINE FROM A SURVEY MAP FILED FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS; VERDICT FINDING PLAINTIFF HAD WRONGLY SET THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the jury verdict finding that plaintiff had incorrectly set the western boundary of his property, held that the jury was wrongly instructed:

The jury received defective instructions as to the application of CPLR 4522. In that regard, Supreme Court charged the jury that “[a] 2002 survey map prepared by Surveyor Dickinson is in evidence. The survey was filed in 2002 with the Rensselaer County Clerk. The law provides that a map which has been on file with the County [Clerk] for more than [10] years is presumed to be accurate unless rebutted by other credible survey or expert opinion. In deciding whether the presumption of accuracy of the 2002 survey has been rebutted by other evidence you will apply the rules that I have already given you and will continue to give you about the evaluation of evidence.”

CPLR 4522 states that “[a]ll maps, surveys and official records affecting real property, which have been on file in the state in the office of . . . any county clerk . . . for more than [10] years, are prima facie evidence of their contents.” In analyzing similar statutory language from another hearsay exception contained in the same article of the CPLR, the Court of Appeals held that “[p]resumptive evidence[] is, . . . like the prima facie evidence to which CPLR 4518 (c) refers, evidence which permits but does not require the trier of fact to find in accordance with the presumed fact, even though no contradictory evidence has been presented. It is, in short, not a presumption which must be rebutted but rather an inference, like the inference of negligence denominated res ipsa loquitor” … .

Supreme Court’s charge required the jury to locate the western boundary of plaintiff’s property as depicted in the 2002 survey unless plaintiff offered evidence that rebutted the survey’s presumed accuracy. The jury should have been instructed that, in the absence of contradictory evidence, it was permitted but not required to adopt the western boundary as depicted in the 2002 survey. Hence, Supreme Court committed reversible error because the effect of the charge was to improperly require plaintiff to disprove the alleged accuracy of the 2002 survey map … . Kennedy v Nimons, 2019 NY Slip Op 09332, Third Dept 12-26-19

 

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