You are here: / Evidence
, , , ,

A PARTY NEED NOT MAKE A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT TO BE ENTITLED TO A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW BY AN APPELLATE COURT; THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER NEGLIGENT, BUT FINDING THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, overruling precedent and disagreeing with the 3rd and 4th Departments, determined (1) a party need not make a motion to set aside the verdict to be entitled to an “against the weight of the evidence” review by the appellate court, and (2) the verdict finding defendant bus driver negligent but also finding the negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s slip and fall was against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff stepped into a pothole when getting off the bus which had stopped to let her off after she had missed her stop:

A … source of this Court’s authority to review the weight of the evidence absent a motion to set aside the verdict comes from CPLR 4404(a), the provision authorizing postverdict motions for a new trial. CPLR 4404(a) provides, in pertinent part: “After a trial of a cause of action or issue triable of right by a jury, upon the motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may . . . order a new trial of a cause of action or separable issue where the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence” … . Insofar as the trial court is permitted to order a new trial “on its own initiative” (CPLR 4404[a]), and “the power of the Appellate Division . . . is as broad as that of the trial court” … , this Court also possesses the power to order a new trial where the appellant made no motion for that relief in the trial court. …

… [I]t was logically impossible for the jury to conclude that [the bus driver] was negligent in failing to provide the plaintiff with a safe location to alight from the bus but that such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. It was uncontradicted that the plaintiff stepped directly from the bus into the pothole, and immediately fell to the ground. The unbroken chain of events was witnessed by … a neutral witness with no relationship or prior affiliation with the parties, and corroborated by photographs of the scene taken immediately after the accident occurred. Assuming, as the jury found, that [the driver]  was negligent, it is logically impossible under the circumstances to find that such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. Under these circumstances, the issues of reasonable care and proximate cause were so inextricably interwoven that the jury’s verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Evans v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 07872, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

,

POLICE OFFICER’S WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO A METH LAB WAS JUSTIFIED BY WHAT WAS IN PLAIN VIEW THROUGH A PARTIALLY OPEN DOOR AND THE OFFICER’S CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE INSIDE A NEARBY TRAILER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a warrantless search and seizure of a meth lab was valid and defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied. Four police officers went to defendant’s property based upon a tip defendant was operating a meth lab there. Before going to the property, the police learned defendant and his girlfriend had purchased Sudafed, which is used to make methanphetamine, and that their subsequent attempts to buy Sudafed were denied. Once on the property officer DeMuth was able to see into the lab through a partially open door. He entered the lab, allegedly because he feared for the safety of  persons in a nearby trailer:

All of the attendant circumstances, including DeMuth’s knowledge of the tip and defendant’s conduct in running out the back door, justified DeMuth’s actions in conducting a limited protective sweep, which consisted of walking to the base of the trailer’s back steps, where the unknown item had been dropped, and peering inside the shed . The record establishes that, once DeMuth was lawfully in position, he was able to observe the incriminating evidence in plain view inside the shed … . …

DeMuth testified that his observations, together with his knowledge of the tip and the information obtained from the national precursor log, led him to believe that there was an active methamphetamine lab inside the shed. He stated that, based upon his training and experience regarding the dangers of methamphetamine production, particularly the risk of explosion, he immediately became concerned for the safety of the inhabitants of the trailer (which included several children), himself and his fellow officers and that he fully opened the door to the shed to provide ventilation. DeMuth’s testimony demonstrated that he had objectively reasonable grounds for believing that the contents of the shed posed an immediate danger to everyone present on the scene and, thus, that his actions in opening the door to the shed were justified … . The record establishes that the methamphetamine lab was subsequently seized by the New York State Police Contaminated Crime Scene Emergency Response Team. In view of all of the foregoing, we find that the warrantless search and seizure of the methamphetamine lab was justified by exceptions to the warrant requirement. People v Richards, 2019 NY Slip Op 07810, Third Dept 10-31-19

 

, ,

THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS MADE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the motion to suppress should not have been granted without a hearing because defense counsel had not been provided with a copy of the search warrant at the time the motion was made:

In evaluating whether a defendant’s factual allegations in a suppression motion are sufficient to warrant a hearing, the court must assess “(1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant’s access to information” … .

We disagree with the County Court’s decision to deny that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which sought to controvert the search warrant without holding a hearing, as defense counsel did not have access to even a redacted copy of the search warrant applications at the time the motion was made … . Although in moving to controvert the search warrant, defense counsel did not make precise factual averments, he was not required to do so as he did not have access to the search warrant applications at issue … . People v Lambey, 2019 NY Slip Op 07793, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF STANDING; 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 did not demonstrate compliance with the RPAPL 1304 notice requirements and did not demonstrate standing:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a representative of its loan servicer. The affidavit was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304, as the representative did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which sent the notice, and provided no independent proof of the actual mailing … . Since 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 someone with personal knowledge of the procedure, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . …

… [T]he plaintiff appended a copy of the note to the complaint, but the plaintiff is not the original lender, and the note was not endorsed. In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted an allonge bearing an undated endorsement in blank, as well as the affidavit of a representative of the loan servicer, dated March 31, 2016, who stated that the plaintiff was in possession of the note, but who did not attest that the plaintiff possessed the note prior to the commencement of the action, or that she had personal knowledge of such possession. The plaintiff’s submissions therefore failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time of commencement of this action in March 2015 … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Ettinger, 2019 NY Slip Op 07759, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 or with the notice provisions of the mortgage:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened … . Nor did [plaintiff’s employee] attest that she had personal knowledge of the mailing practices of her employer at the time the RPAPL 1304 notices allegedly were sent. Accordingly, “[s]ince 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 someone with personal knowledge of the procedure, the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304” … .

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, that a notice of default in accordance with section 22 of the mortgage was properly transmitted to the defendants prior to the commencement of this action. [Plaintiff’s employee’s] unsubstantiated and conclusory statements that a representative … mailed such notice “[i]n accordance with the provisions of the Mortgage” to the defendants at their last known address at least 30 days prior to commencement of the action, even combined with copies of the notices of default and envelopes, with no evidence as to the date the envelopes were sent, “failed to establish that the required notice was mailed to the defendant[s] by first-class mail or actually delivered to [their] notice address’ if sent by other means, as required by the mortgage agreement” … . U.S. Bank N.A. v defendants., 2019 NY Slip Op 07806, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, , ,

THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY PRECLUDED DEFENDANTS FROM CALLING PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIANS AS WITNESSES IN THIS POLICE EXCESSIVE FORCE CASE BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE NOTICE AND THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ACCEPTED PLAINTIFF’S REDACTIONS OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS BECAUSE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO SUGGEST THEIR OWN REDACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the trial court properly precluded the defendants to call plaintiff’s (Walid’s) treating physicians as witnesses and properly redacted plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff, a teenager with autism, brought this action against police officers for assault, battery and use of excessive force. Defendants did not give timely notice of their wish to call the treating doctors and did not supply their own suggested redactions:

We find that, under the circumstances, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding defendants from introducing testimony from Walid’s treating doctors at Ferncliff Manor. Defendants failed to disclose any of these witnesses until four days before trial, after having previously affirmatively represented to the court that they did not intend to call any witnesses. The court and plaintiffs relied on this representation in estimating the length of trial and selecting a jury. In view of the trial court’s broad authority to control its courtroom, it was not unreasonable for the court to decline to add these witnesses and prolong the trial when a jury had already been chosen (twice) based on certain representations about its length … .

The trial court also did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing only a limited subset of Walid’s records from Ferncliff Manor to be admitted into evidence. It is clear that these records required at least some redaction, including to eliminate double hearsay … and propensity evidence … . Because defendants refused to propose any redactions, after having been given ample opportunities to do so, the trial court was justified in adopting plaintiffs’ proposed redactions instead. Even if defendants are correct that the complete records contain additional relevant evidence that should not have been excluded, having failed to propose any redactions of their own, defendants cannot now complain that the records should have been redacted less heavily. Walid M. v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07739, First Dept 10-29-19

 

,

ALLOWING THE INTRODUCTION OF A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined it was (harmless) error to allow the People to introduce a witness’s grand jury testimony as a prior consistent statement to counter the implication of recent fabrication raised on cross-examination:

“A witness'[s] trial testimony ordinarily may not be bolstered with pretrial statements” … . Prior consistent statements, however, may be used to rebut a claim of recent fabrication to the extent that such a statement predated the motive to falsify … . …

… [W]e conclude that Supreme Court erred in allowing the People to utilize her grand jury testimony. That said, given that the admission of bolstering testimony constitutes nonconstitutional error … , we find that the error is harmless and there is not a significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant but for this error … . The inconsistency speaks to which direction the shooter dispersed during what was described as a chaotic scene, not to the key issue of identification. As recited above, four witnesses identified defendant as the shooter. As such, we find that the error here is of no moment. People v Johnson, 2019 NY Slip Op 07646, Third Dept 10-24-19

 

,

DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED ADDITIONAL MOLINEUX EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s absence from the judge’s ruling on whether Molineux evidence was admissible violated his right to be present at material stages of the trial. Although defendant was present when the Molineux arguments were made, the prosecutor made further arguments at the time of the ruling, which led to additional Molineux evidence being presented at trial:

… [T]he trial court conducted an initial Ventimiglia hearing with defendant present to address the prosecution’s Molineux application, which sought to admit evidence of defendant’s alleged prior assault on his then-girlfriend. After the parties made their arguments, the trial court postponed the issuance of its ruling. On the date the trial court intended to issue its ruling, it noted that defendant had not yet been produced, and defense counsel stated that he would prefer if the court issued its ruling with defendant present. The court stated that defendant’s presence was not required since it was merely issuing a legal ruling and began ruling on the application. The People then sought to include new factual details of the prior assault not mentioned at the earlier proceeding where defendant was present (i.e. that defendant choked his then-girlfriend to the point that she almost lost consciousness). The trial court advised the prosecutor to leave out any testimony regarding these new details since these facts were not included in the original application. However, the prosecutor stressed that these new facts were “critical” for the jury to understand why the victim feared defendant, and the trial court allowed the prosecutor to elicit testimony from the witness.

Defendant should have been afforded the opportunity to be present given that the prosecutor’s introduction of these new facts, in effect, expanded the original Molineux application and involved factual matters of which defendant may have had peculiar knowledge. Defendant was in the best position to either deny the new factual details, point out errors in the prosecutor’s account of the details, or provide defense counsel with details that would have been useful in advancing his position … . People v Calderon, 2019 NY Slip Op 07707, First Dept 10-24-19

 

,

DEFENDANTS PRESENTED EVIDENCE THE BANK ACCEPTED PAYMENTS IN LESS THAN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT AFTER THE ALLEGED DEFAULT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because defendants presented evidence the bank had accepted payments after the alleged default:

… [T]he defendants presented evidence demonstrating that, subsequent to their alleged default in September 2008, the plaintiff accepted mortgage payments in a lesser amount than originally required, which raises triable issues of fact as to whether the parties entered into a modification agreement subsequent to the defendants’ alleged default in September 2008, and whether there was a continuing default by the defendants from 2008 … . U.S. Bank N.A. v McEntee, 2019 NY Slip Op 07636, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

, ,

PROOF OF AN UNCHARGED SEXUAL OFFENSE RELIED UPON FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS INSUFFICIENT; LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT REDUCED TO LEVEL TWO (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reduced the defendant’s sex offender level from three to two because the evidence of an uncharged sexual offense was not sufficient:

… [A]lthough the defendant’s presumptive risk level was level two, the People contended that an upward departure was warranted based upon evidence that, approximately three months before the charged crime was committed, the defendant committed an uncharged sex offense against a different victim who allegedly was 15 years old at the time. While the People presented DNA evidence establishing that the defendant had sexual contact with the second alleged victim, the only evidence of that alleged victim’s age was a statement in a police report that she was 15 years old, and, since the police report stated that the alleged victim’s sexual contact with the defendant was willing, the bare notation of the victim’s age was the only proof of the crime on which the People relied. Thus, the Supreme Court should not have granted an upward departure since the evidence of the alleged victim’s age was not supported by a “detailed victim statement[ ]” … or otherwise corroborated … . People v Torres, 2019 NY Slip Op 07629, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

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