You are here: / Evidence
,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A WALL UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH A HARNESS; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS SPECULATIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Defendant’s expert’s affidavit was deemed speculative because it was not based upon record evidence. Defendant’s argument that further discovery might reveal defenses was rejected, in part, because defendant was not diligent in pursuing discovery:

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim with his deposition testimony, photographic exhibits and expert’s opinion, which showed that he fell from a 10-foot high sidewalk bridge that he was helping to assemble on defendant’s property, when a pile of heavy wooden planks shifted and struck him on the legs, causing him to lose his balance. Plaintiff testified that the side barriers for the sidewalk bridge were not yet built, and he was not supplied with a safety harness to protect him from gravity-related harm … . …

Defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment was premature where its expert opined that depositions of the contractor’s personnel yet to be taken might yield evidence that plaintiff was supplied with a fall-arrest safety harness, and that he was recalcitrant in not using it, lacks factual support in the record, and as such, the expert’s opinion in that regard is speculative and non-probative … . The mere hope that additional discovery may lead to sufficient evidence to defeat a summary judgment motion is insufficient to deny such a motion … . The record further shows that defendant had a reasonable opportunity to pursue discovery … , and defendant has not shown that it was diligent in pursuing discovery in this case … . Singh v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 08272, First Dept 11-14-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH, IN PART, CONTRADICTED HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been granted, despite an affidavit from the plaintiff which, in part, contradicted his deposition testimony. Plaintiff was struck from above by the chain in a chain hoist system:

Supreme Court correctly concluded that plaintiff Jose Goncalves’s affidavit submitted in support of the motion should not be considered to the extent that it averred that he was struck by the entire chain hoist system, which contradicted his deposition testimony that he was struck only by the chain itself … . However, the affidavit was consistent with his prior testimony that he was struck by the chain from above, and the record contains no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, plaintiffs demonstrated that the chain hoist system at issue failed, causing Goncalves to be struck by an object – either the chain hoist system or just the chain itself – from above, and thereby established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Goncalves v New 56th & Park (NY) Owner, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08265, First Dept 11-14-19

 

, , , ,

THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE; THE BANK NEED NOT AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IF THE ISSUE IS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER; REPLY PAPERS CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES FIRST RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; BUT REPLY PAPERS MAY NOT PRESENT, FOR THE FIRST TIME, EVIDENCE ADDRESSING AN ISSUE RAISED IN THE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff bank (Aurora) did not provide sufficient proof of providing notice of default to defendants. The Second Department noted that the bank need not affirmatively prove compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 because the issue was not raised in defendant’s answer. The court also noted that evidence submitted in reply papers addressing matters raised for the first time in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment can be considered, but evidence submitted for the first time in reply papers addressing issues which were raised in the answer should not be considered:

In support of its motion, Aurora submitted two affidavits. The first affidavit was from Laura McCann, Vice President of Aurora, the loan servicer responsible for sending the notices of default. The second affidavit was from A.J. Loll, Vice President of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the current plaintiff and loan servicer. While McCann attested that Aurora was responsible for “providing notices pursuant to the terms of the note and mortgage evidencing the mortgage loan at issue, and specifically for providing notices such as the notice required under Section 22 of the mortgage,” nowhere in her affidavit did she attest to the actual mailing or delivery of those notices. As to the second affidavit, while Loll attested, inter alia, that “[t]he servicing records show that a 30-day letter was mailed to [the] defendants . . . … , which letter advised Defendants of their default,” and attached a purportedly “true copy” of the 30-day letter as Exhibit I, the affidavit did not contain a statement that the 30-day notice was sent in a manner according with the terms of the mortgage, i.e., “mailed by first class mail or . . . actually delivered to [borrower’s] notice address if sent by other means.” Moreover, Loll’s affidavit “did not contain a statement that [Loll] was familiar with [Aurora’s] mailing practices and procedures,” so as to establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . While Loll claimed that servicing records show that a 30-day letter was mailed to the defendants, she did not identify what those records are and did not authenticate them as business records and attach them to her affidavit … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Tamargo, 2019 NY Slip Op 08197, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT NO LONGER NEED BE SHOWN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should have been granted, noting that a plaintiff need not demonstrate the absence of comparative fault:

A plaintiff is no longer required to show freedom from comparative fault to establish her or his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability … . ” A driver of a vehicle approaching another vehicle from the rear is required to maintain a reasonably safe distance and rate of speed under the prevailing conditions to avoid colliding with the other vehicle'” ( … see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129[a]). A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision … . Although a sudden stop of the lead vehicle may constitute a nonnegligent explanation for a rear-end collision, ” vehicle stops which are foreseeable under the prevailing traffic conditions, even if sudden and frequent, must be anticipated by the driver who follows'” … .

Here, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he was reducing the speed of his vehicle, with his foot on the brake pedal, when his vehicle was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle. Likewise, the defendant’s testimony at her deposition, a transcript of which was submitted by the plaintiff in support of his cross motion, was to the effect that her vehicle hit the plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear while in “stop and go” traffic. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident … . Xin Fang Xia v Saft, 2019 NY Slip Op 08248, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, , ,

THE UCC CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF POSSESSION OF A LOST NOTE WERE NOT MET; PLAINTIFF BANK THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate it had standing to bring the foreclosure action. The UCC’s requirements for demonstrating ownership of a lost note were not met:

… [T]he affidavit of possession of the original note, sworn to by a vice president of loan documentation for the plaintiff, does not contain any details of delivery of the note, except for the claim that it was delivered to the plaintiff sometime after its execution, and that the plaintiff “had possession of the Promissory Note on or before … the date that this action was commenced.” The lost note affidavit of another vice president of loan documentation employed by the plaintiff stated vaguely, and in a conclusory manner, that the note was “inadvertently lost, misplaced or destroyed,” that the plaintiff had not “pledged, assigned, transferred, hypothecated or otherwise disposed of the note,” and that the plaintiff had made “a diligent and extensive search of its records in a good faith effort to discover the lost note in accordance with its procedures for locating the lost note.” The lost note affidavit did not provide any facts as to when the search for the note occurred, who conducted the search, or when or how the note was lost … . Thus, it “failed to sufficiently establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the note” … .

Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its ownership of the lost note (see UCC 3-804), or that it had standing, “as the lawful holder or assignee of the subject note on the date it commenced this action, to commence the action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Meisels, 2019 NY Slip Op 08243, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, , ,

BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OR COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s (Chase’s) motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted, The court held: (1) the conclusory affidavit submitted by the bank  to prove defendant’s default had no probative value, the business record itself should have been provided; (2) compliance with the mailing provisions of RPAPL 1304 was not proven by the bank; (3) failure to comply with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304 can be raised as a defense at any time; and (4) by not raising the failure to provide the notice required by the mortgage in the answer or a motion to amend the answer, the defendant waived that defense:

Here, the affidavit of Mimoza Petreska, a vice president of Chase, submitted in support of Chase’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, was insufficient to establish the defendant’s default in payment under the note … . The only business record annexed to Petreska’s affidavit with regard to the default was a copy of the notice of default dated May 15, 2012, which merely stated, in conclusory fashion, that the defendant’s loan was in default. Conclusory affidavits lacking a factual basis are without evidentiary value … . Moreover, “[w]hile 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” … . “[I]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Akanda, 2019 NY Slip Op 08180, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, ,

EXPERT’S OPINION THAT DEFENDANT’S IMPROPER INSTALLATION OF A SIDEWALK/MANHOLE CAUSED THE SIDEWALK HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD; THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court. determined the motion to set aside the verdict in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Although plaintiff’s expert was properly qualified, his opinion that defendant’s improper installation of the sidewalk/manhole caused the sidewalk height-differential over which plaintiff tripped and fell was not supported by evidence in the record:

… [T]he expert reached his conclusion as to the defendant’s negligence by assuming material facts not supported by the evidence and by guessing and speculating in drawing that conclusion … . For example, the expert testified to having no knowledge of when the sidewalk was constructed, when the manhole had been installed, or the weight and inside dimensions of the manhole structure. Yet, he opined that the defendant was responsible for the settling of the sidewalk flag and manhole due to improper backfilling, simply because the manhole belonged to the defendant at the time of the plaintiff’s fall.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, absent the expert’s assumptive and speculative testimony, there was no evidence of the defendant’s negligence. ” Ippolito v Consolidated Edison of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08179, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

,

SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT WAS BASED UPON AN ANONYMOUS TIP, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the relevant convictions, determined the police officer effectively seized defendant by blocking defendant’s car based upon an anonymous tip. The evidence seized from the car should have been suppressed:

The conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree arises from a police encounter during which an officer received information from an anonymous 911 call that drugs were being sold out of a vehicle. The officer arrived on the scene and observed a legally parked vehicle matching the description given by the anonymous caller and further observed defendant in a fully reclined position in the driver’s seat. The officer parked his patrol car alongside defendant’s vehicle in such a manner as to prevent defendant from driving away and, as the People stipulated in their post-hearing memorandum, the officer thereby effectively seized the vehicle. We agree with defendant that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the initial seizure, and thus County Court erred in refusing to suppress both the tangible property seized, i.e., the weapon and marihuana found in the vehicle, and the statements defendant made to the police at the time of his arrest … . Based on the anonymous tip and defendant’s otherwise innocuous behavior … , the officer had, at most, a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” which permitted him to approach the vehicle and make a common-law inquiry of its occupants ,,, . The officer did not make any “confirmatory observations” of the criminal behavior reported by the 911 caller … and therefore did not have “a reasonable suspicion that [defendant] was involved in a felony or misdemeanor” to justify the seizure … . People v Williams, 2019 NY Slip Op 08048, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

, ,

ALLOWING LOSS PREVENTION OFFICERS TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO MAY HAVE BEEN ERROR BUT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defense counsel’s failure to object to testimony of loss prevention officers identifying defendant in a surveillance video was not demonstrated to amount to ineffective assistance:

Although we agree with defendant that there is no basis in the record to conclude that the loss prevention officers who gave testimony identifying defendant as an individual depicted in the surveillance video were more likely to correctly identify defendant from the video than the jury … , we further conclude that defendant failed to “demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s alleged shortcoming[]” in failing to object to the admission of that testimony … . People v Hines, 2019 NY Slip Op 08032, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DRIVER STRUCK A DISABLED CAR WHICH WAS SIDEWAYS IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY; THE CAR WAS BLACK AND THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED AT NIGHT IN A STEADY RAIN; DEFENDANT DRIVER CLAIMED TO BE GOING THE SPEED LIMIT, 65 MPH; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants’ (Grice defendants’) motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case was properly  denied. Defendant driver, who allegedly was travelling at the speed limit, 65 mph,  struck a disabled car which was sideways in the left lane of a highway. The car was black and the accident happened at night when it was raining. Defendants argued the emergency doctrine applied:

Contrary to the Grice defendants’ contention, their submissions failed to establish as a matter of law that defendant was confronted with a sudden and unexpected emergency situation to which he did not contribute. Although the accident occurred at night and the disabled vehicle was black and did not have its headlights on, the subject area of the highway was not curved and instead was straight and level with no permanent view obstructions or roadway defects to prevent defendant from perceiving the disabled vehicle. In addition, defendant testified at his deposition that he could see the “standard distance” with his headlights illuminating the roadway, yet he was unable to provide a reason why he did not observe the disabled vehicle prior to impact … . The fact that the disabled vehicle was positioned directly ahead of defendant on such an area of the highway with the headlights of defendant’s vehicle illuminating the roadway, “considered in light of [defendant’s] conceded failure to see anything prior to the impact, and his failure to take any steps to avoid the collision . . . , calls into question [his] testimony concerning the speed of his vehicle and his attentiveness as he drove” … . Moreover, inasmuch as the Grice defendants’ submissions established that the subject area of the highway was not well lit, that it was raining steadily rather than merely precipitating lightly, and that the highway was wet, we conclude that there is an issue of fact whether defendant, who testified that he was driving at the posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour, was nonetheless operating the vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions … . “If [a trier of fact] determines that [defendant’s] speed was unreasonable under the existing weather and road conditions, [the trier of fact] could also conclude that [defendant’s] own unreasonable speed was what deprived him of sufficient time to avoid the collision, thereby preventing him from escaping liability under the emergency doctrine” … . White v Connors, 2019 NY Slip Op 08017, Fourth Dept 11-8-19

 

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