You are here: / Evidence
,

SEARCH WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE WAS OVERLY BROAD; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined that the search warrant issued for defendant’s cell phone was  overly broad in that it authorized a search going back eight months before the conduct alleged in the warrant:

The search warrant for defendant’s phones was overbroad. The application alleged that, on September 1, 2016, defendant sent texts to a 13 year old making indecent proposals, and called her on the same day. The warrant authorized examination of defendant’s internet usage from January 1 to September 13, 2016, and also authorized, without a time limitation, examination of essentially all the other data on defendant’s phones. This failed to satisfy the particularity requirement of both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, § 12 of New York’s Constitution … .

The pivotal question here is whether there was probable cause that evidence of the crimes specified in the warrant would be found in the broad areas specified. Notably, the warrant application alleged two discrete crimes and specified conduct that “began” on September 1, 2016, and, as far as the available information indicated, occurred entirely on that date. While it was of course possible that defendant’s phone contained evidence of the specified offenses that predated September 1, there were no specific allegations to that effect. …

The information available to the warrant-issuing court did not support a reasonable belief that evidence of the crimes specified in the warrant would be found in all of the “locations” within defendant’s cell phone to which the warrant authorized access — for example, in defendant’s browsing history six or seven months before September 1, 2016, or in his emails, the examination of which was authorized without any time restriction … . People v Thompson, 2019 NY Slip Op 08772, First Dept 12-5-19

 

,

WITHOUT PROOF DEFENDANT USED, ATTEMPTED TO USE, OR THREATENED TO USE THE BOX CUTTER FOUND IN HIS POCKET, THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BOX CUTTER MET THE DEFINITION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, reversing defendant’s criminal possession of a weapon conviction, determined the proof that defendant simply possessed a box cutter was not enough:

While feeling around defendant’s waist, the officer felt a metal object in defendant’s shorts. Upon further search, the officer saw the butt end of a box cutter sticking out of the fly of defendant’s underwear. The razor of the box cutter was in its sheath and not exposed. He later tested the box cutter to see if it was sharp, and he was able to cut paper with it. Officer McKeever never saw defendant holding the box cutter and did not see him argue with or threaten anyone. * * *

As the jury was charged, a “dangerous instrument” is “any instrument, article or substance, . . . which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” … . An object “becomes a dangerous instrument when it is used in a manner which renders it readily capable of causing serious physical injury” … .

Here, there was no proof that defendant used the box cutter, attempted to use it, or threatened to use it as required under the plain terms of the statute in order for it to be a dangerous instrument … . People v Knowles, 2019 NY Slip Op 08770, First Dept 12-5-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE LIQUID ON THE FLOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the liquid on the floor:

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The deposition testimony of the assistant manager of the supermarket, who did not recall if he was working on the date of the accident, and the affidavit of the defendant’s vice president of loss prevention, merely referred to the defendant’s general cleaning and inspection practices. The defendant did not proffer any evidence demonstrating when the specific area where the plaintiff fell was last cleaned or inspected before the accident … . Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the condition on which the plaintiff fell was not visible and apparent, and would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection of the area where the plaintiff was injured … . Fortune v Western Beef, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08656, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

, , ,

THE CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE UNDERLYING MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a California judgment should have been given full faith and credit and the underlying merits should not have been considered:

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the judgment and the order, which obligated the defendants to pay the plaintiff certain amounts, and evidence that the defendants had not paid the amounts awarded therein (see CPLR 3213 …). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense.

The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution (US Const, art IV, § 1) requires that the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state be given full faith and credit in every other state. The purpose of the clause is to avoid conflicts between states in adjudicating the same matters … . “The doctrine establishes a rule of evidence . . . which requires recognition of the foreign judgment as proof of the prior-out-of-State litigation and gives it res judicata effect, thus avoiding relitigation of issues in one State which have already been decided in another” … . “Absent a challenge to the jurisdiction of the issuing court, New York is required to give the same preclusive effect to a judgment from another state as it would have in the issuing state” … , and it is precluded from inquiring into the merits of the judgment … .

Here, the defendants did not challenge the jurisdiction of the California court, but instead, sought to relitigate the merits underlying that court’s determination. The Supreme Court should not have considered the defendants’ attack on the merits of the California determination. Balboa Capital Corp. v Plaza Auto Care, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08645, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

,

THE REFEREE’S REPORT, WHICH IS MERELY ADVISORY AND IS NOT BINDING ON THE COURT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS THAT WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE REFEREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report should not have been accepted because it was based upon business records which were not in evidence:

… Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to reject the referee’s report. “The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . “The referee’s findings and recommendations are advisory only and have no binding effect on the court, which remains the ultimate arbiter of the dispute” … .

Here, in addition to the outstanding principal amount of the loan, along with accrued interest and charges, the referee included $507,095.35 in “Tax Disbursements” and $27,705.00 in “Hazard Insurance Disbursements” as part of the total amount due to the plaintiff. The defendant correctly objected to the inclusion of these disbursements on the ground that they were calculated based on business records that were never produced by the plaintiff or submitted to the referee (see CPLR 4518[a] …). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Cherestal, 2019 NY Slip Op 08660, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT, A PODIATRIST, USING ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE (OZONE THERAPY), TREATED PLAINTIFF FOR LYME DISEASE; DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted because defendant did not submit proof of the appropriate standard of care. The defendant, a podiatrist, treated plaintiff for Lyme disease with “ozone therapy:”

In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff testified that after he saw an advertisement by defendant in a magazine about alternative medicine he sought treatment from defendant for Lyme disease. Defendant is a licensed podiatrist who the record shows told plaintiff that he could treat a host of incurable non-podiatric conditions.  * * *

Defendant has a history of being accused of using his putative study of ozone therapy’s ostensible benefits in treating podiatric conditions as a cover for his treatment of non-podiatric conditions … . In the present case, the record reflects that the putative treatment was not for a podiatric condition, and thus that defendant was practicing medicine outside of the medical confines of podiatry … , which raises an issue of professional misconduct … .

Defendant failed to make the necessary prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, requiring reversal and denial of his motion for summary judgment regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers … . Defendant failed to establish the standard of care with which he should have complied for the treatment of Lyme disease, as to which he submitted no expert evidence … . Thus, on this record, it cannot be determined whether defendant deviated from accepted standards of practice. A trial is required on the issue whether defendant’s treatment proximately caused the physical and neurological manifestations of injury alleged by plaintiff. Georgievski v Robins, 2019 NY Slip Op 08619, First Dept 12-3-19

 

,

COPY OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE; JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined a copy of the postnuptial agreement should not have been admitted pursuant to the best evidence rule:

The best evidence rule requires the production of an original writing where its contents are in dispute and sought to be proven … . The rule serves mainly to protect against fraud, perjury, and inaccuracies derived from faulty memory … . “[S]econdary evidence of the contents of an unproduced original may be admitted upon threshold factual findings by the trial court that the proponent of the substitute has sufficiently explained the unavailability of the primary evidence and has not procured its loss or destruction in bad faith” … . “Loss may be established upon a showing of a diligent search in the location where the document was last known to have been kept, and through the testimony of the person who last had custody of the original” … . The more important the document is to the resolution of the ultimate issue in the case, the stricter the requirement of establishing its loss … .

Here, at trial, the plaintiff merely testified that she did not possess the original postnuptial agreement and that she believed it was either lost or stolen. Given the significance of the postnuptial agreement to the issue of equitable distribution, the defendant’s allegations that his purported signature on the document was forged, and the plaintiff’s failure to adequately explain the unavailability of the original document, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to admit a copy of the document into evidence … , and to incorporate the purported agreement into the judgment of divorce. Mutlu v Mutlu, 2019 NY Slip Op 08567, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

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

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304 … . Although Menyweather [an assistant secretary employed by Nationstar Mortgage LLC, the plaintiff’s loan servicer] stated in his affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by regular and certified mail, and attached copies of the notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents establishing that the notices were actually mailed … . The plaintiff failed to submit a copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute … . Further, although Menyweather attested that he had personal knowledge of the loan servicer’s records, and that those records included the records of the prior servicer, Bank of America, Menyweather did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of Bank of America, the entity that allegedly sent the 90-day notices to the defendant … . Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the a ctual mailing, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that the items were 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 … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sawh, 2019 NY Slip Op 08556, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF ITS STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not submit sufficient proof of standing to bring the foreclosure action:

… [W]hile the plaintiff alleged that the note had been endorsed to it, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a copy of the note with the endorsement was attached to the complaint. The only copy of the complaint that appears in the record before us was submitted as an exhibit in support of Williams’s [defendant’s] motion, and the version of the note accompanying that copy of the complaint did not include the endorsement. The plaintiff’s attempt to establish standing through the submission of the affidavit of Morgan Battle Ames, a contract management coordinator for the plaintiff’s loan servicer, was also insufficient. Ames stated that she had “personal knowledge of the stated facts and circumstances and books and records maintained by [the loan servicer],” and that the “information in this affidavit is taken from [the loan servicer’s] business records,” which were “recorded by persons with personal knowledge of the information in the business record.” Since Ames failed to attest that she was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the entity that generated the subject business records, she failed to demonstrate … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Williams, 2019 NY Slip Op 08554, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

, ,

DEFICIENCIES IN THE BANK’S PROOF OF DEFAULT, STANDING AND THE AMOUNT OWED COULD NOT BE CURED BY SUBMITTING ADDITIONAL PROOF IN THE REPLY PAPERS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not submit sufficient proof of defendants’ default, standing or the amount owed, and the deficiencies could not be cured by a second affidavit submitted in reply:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted the affidavit of its assistant vice president, Keith Weinkauf. As to the defendants’ alleged default, Weinkauf stated that the defendants “fail[ed] to make the full payment due on the [m]aturity [d]ate” of the note. On the issue of standing, Weinkauf averred that “[e]ffective March 31, 2016, Montauk Credit Union merged into Bethpage Federal Credit Union.” Further, with respect to the amount owed by the defendants, Weinkauf stated that the current unpaid principal balance due on the note was $58,165.61, plus interest, late charges, and fees. However, apart from producing a copy of the note itself, Weinkauf submitted no evidence in admissible form with his affidavit to establish the existence of a default, the plaintiff’s standing, or the calculation of the unpaid amount owed by the defendants … . Although the plaintiff later submitted, with its reply papers, a second affidavit from Weinkauf, along with supporting documentary evidence, to establish its standing, the plaintiff could not, under the circumstances presented, rely on the second affidavit to correct deficiencies inherent in the original one … . Bethpage Fed. Credit Union v Luzzi, 2019 NY Slip Op 08550, Second Dept, 11-27-19

 

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