You are here: / Evidence
, ,

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

 

,

THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS IMPROPERLY ADDRESSED TO CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, WHO ARE NOT POLICE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS POLICES OFFICERS, AND THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED BY BOTH POLICE OFFICERS AND CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; NEITHER THE SEARCH WARRANT NOR THE SEARCH WAS THEREBY RENDERED INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that corrections officers, who are not police officers, participated in the search of his property was properly denied:

The defendant is correct that the search warrant was improperly addressed to the Special Operations Group, since it includes members who are not police officers within the meaning of the statute (see CPL 690.25[1]; see also CPL 2.10[25]). However, “[s]earch warrants should be tested in a commonsense and realistic manner with minor omissions and inaccuracies not affecting an otherwise valid warrant” … . Indeed, the fact that a search warrant is partially but not wholly invalid does not necessarily require suppression of the evidence that was recovered pursuant to such a warrant . Under the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the search warrant here was … otherwise properly addressed to sworn police officers in conformity with CPL 690.25(1), the additional inclusion of the members of the Special Operation Group who were not police officers was “analogous to a clerical omission which did not invalidate the warrant” … .

Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the participation by members of the Special Operations Group in the execution of the search warrant did not invalidate the search or otherwise require suppression of the physical evidence at issue. Although the Criminal Procedure Law only authorizes “[a] police officer” to execute a search warrant … , the participation by an individual who does not meet this statutory definition “is not inherently improper”… . Indeed, courts have upheld the validity of a search where civilians participated in the execution of a search warrant … . Under such circumstances, “civilians who act at the behest of the State are treated as police agents, subject to the same controls and restrictions of the Fourth Amendment as the police themselves” … . People v Ward, 2019 NY Slip Op 07624, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

, ,

TRANSCRIPT OF FAMILY COURT ACT 1028 HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED AS A REPLACEMENT FOR AN ABUSE-NEGLECT FACT-FINDING HEARING BECAUSE THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS ARE DIFFERENT AND BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT THE WITNESS AT THE 1028 HEARING WAS UNAVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the transcript of the Family Court Act 1028 hearing (seeking the quick return of a child temporarily removed pending a fact-finding hearing) should not have been used to replace the abuse/neglect fact-finding hearing because the proof requirements are different:

Family Court Act § 1028 permits a parent to apply for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed from the custody of the parent pending the fact-finding hearing on the issue of abuse or neglect … . “[A] section 1028 hearing is intended to give a parent an opportunity for a prompt reunion with the child, pending trial” … . In analyzing an application for a child’s return under Family Court Act § 1028, a court must engage in a test balancing the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal … . Section 1028 hearings, however, were not intended to replace fact-finding hearings, as the evidentiary standards are different. Family Court Act § 1046 provides that “only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted” at a fact-finding hearing, whereas evidence “[i]n a dispositional hearing and during all other stages of a proceeding under” Family Court Act article 10 need only be “material and relevant” … . A determination on an application pursuant to section 1028 “should not be taken as any indication of what ultimate determination should be made by the Family Court as to [a] petition alleging abuse and neglect” … . “At a fact-finding hearing, any determination that a child is an abused or neglected child must be based on a preponderance of the evidence” … .

CPLR 4517, which governs the admissibility of prior testimony in a civil action, is applicable here … , as the Family Court Act does not prescribe the issue of whether testimony from a prior hearing pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 may be admitted into evidence on the petitioner’s direct case in a fact-finding hearing. Pursuant to CPLR 4517(a)(3), prior trial testimony of a witness may be used by any party for any purpose against another party if the court finds that such witness is dead or otherwise unavailable. In this matter, the Family Court made no such finding.

Here, the Family Court should not have admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing transcripts of testimony from the hearing conducted pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028. As ACS now correctly concedes, the caseworker’s testimony at the prior hearing, which included hearsay statements, actually formed the basis of the court’s neglect finding at the subsequent fact-finding hearing. Matter of Louie L. V. (Virzhiniya T. V.), 2019 NY Slip Op 07592, 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