You are here: / Evidence
, ,

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

 

,

DAMAGES IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE FOR A TORN MENISCUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF’S DOMINANT HAND ($25,000 FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING AND $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING) WERE INADEQUATE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPLR 4404(a) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as inadequate in this traffic accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff sustained a torn meniscus in his right knee and irreparable damage to his thumb on his dominant hand. The jury awarded $25,000 for pat pain and suffering and $0 for future pain and suffering. The Second Department held that the past pain and suffering amount should be $100,000 and the future pain and suffering amount should be $50,000:

“While the amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is a question for the jury, and the jury’s determination is entitled to great deference, it may be set aside if the award deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation” … . Prior damage awards in cases involving similar injuries are not binding upon the courts, but serve to guide and enlighten them in determining whether a verdict in a given case constitutes reasonable compensation … . However, consideration should also be given to other factors, including the nature and extent of the injuries … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the jury’s award for past pain and suffering was inadequate to the extent indicated herein (see CPLR 5501[c] …). Furthermore, the jury’s failure to award any damages for future pain and suffering was not based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence … , and was inadequate to the extent indicated herein … . Cullen v Thumser, 2019 NY Slip Op 08988, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, ,

PROOF OF MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL CONTACT INSUFFICIENT; RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s risk assessment to level one, determined the proof of multiple instances of sexual contact was insufficient:

… [T]he People failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to risk factor 4. Although the People submitted evidence, in the form of the defendant’s statements, that he engaged in sexual contact with the victim on three or four occasions, they failed to submit any evidence as to when these instances of sexual contact occurred relative to one another, so as to demonstrate that such instances were separated in time by at least 24 hours, as the People claimed … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have assessed 20 points under risk factor 4. People v Jarama, 2019 NY Slip Op 09044, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

,

PROOF OF GENERAL INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICE-ON-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner’s (Colonial’s) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this ice-on-sidewalk slip and fall case:

“To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, [a] defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … . Here, Colonial failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged patch of ice. The deposition testimony of the president of its board of managers merely referred to general inspection practices, and provided no evidence regarding any specific inspection of the subject area prior to the plaintiff’s fall … . Carro v Colonial Woods Condominiums, 2019 NY Slip Op 08986, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

, ,

IRRELEVANT PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ADMITTED SOLELY TO AROUSE THE EMOTIONS OF THE JURY; THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS IN SUMMATION WERE SIMILARLY IMPROPER; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the photographs of the complainant’s genitals and anus were irrelevant and should not have been admitted in this sex-offense case. In addition, the court criticized the prosecutor’s remarks in summation (unpreserved errors):

“Photographic evidence should be excluded only if its sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant” … . Here, the complainant’s pediatrician, who was called as a witness by the prosecutor, testified that there were no injuries to the complainant’s genitals or anus, and that she did not expect to see any injury based upon the complainant’s report. Nevertheless, the prosecutor then asked the pediatrician to approach the jurors and display the photographs to them. Under the circumstances of this case, the photographs were irrelevant, and served no purpose other than to inflame the emotions of the jury and to introduce into the trial an impermissible sympathy factor … . The error was then compounded when the prosecutor argued in summation that the complainant had to “get on a table and open up her legs and have her genitals photographed to be shown to 15 strangers . . . What did she gain out of this? Nothing.” The improper admission of the photographs cannot be deemed harmless under the circumstances of this case … .

Since there must be a new trial, we note that, although the issue is unpreserved for appellate review, the prosecutor engaged in multiple instances of improper conduct during summation … . For instance, the prosecutor attempted to arouse the sympathies of the jurors … . Additionally, while discussing the character of the defendant, who was a church pastor at the time of trial, the prosecutor referenced the sexual abuse scandals involving the Catholic Church and Orthodox Jewish communities. The prosecutor also pointed out that during jury selection, a prospective juror expressed that she did not feel comfortable sitting on this case because of all the priests who have gotten away with child abuse, and that another prospective juror stated that a family member was raped by a member of the clergy. “[I]n summing up to the jury, counsel must stay within the four corners of the evidence and avoid irrelevant and inflammatory comments which have a tendency to prejudice the jury against the accused” … . People v Lewis, 2019 NY Slip Op 09023, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

,

MATTER REMITTED FOR A REOPENED SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE THAT THE VEHICLE STOP MAY HAVE BEEN BASED UPON INFORMATION FROM AN ANONYMOUS BYSTANDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter for a reopened suppression hearing, determined the hearing was warranted by new information that the stop of defendant’s vehicle may have been based on information from an anonymous source. The defendant had already been convicted of attempted robbery twice after a reversal:

We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court should have granted his motion to reopen the suppression hearing on those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence recovered as a result of the stop of the livery car and the identification evidence that followed the stop pursuant to CPL 710.40(4). CPL 710.40(4) permits a court to reopen a suppression hearing if additional pertinent facts have been discovered which the defendant could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the original suppression motion … . The additional facts discovered need not necessarily be “outcome-determinative or essential'”; instead, they must be “pertinent” in that they “would materially affect or have affected” the earlier suppression ruling … . Here, the revelation that the livery car description may have come from an anonymous bystander who interjected while translating between the complainant and the sergeant at the scene was previously unknown, and because the sergeant did not previously testify in the case, could not have been discovered with due diligence by the defendant. The information that the livery car description came from an unidentified and anonymous bystander would have affected the earlier suppression determination by placing squarely before the court questions regarding the identity and reliability of the person who described the livery car … . People v Dunbar, 2019 NY Slip Op 09018, 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