You are here: / Evidence
,

BANK’S PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT INSUFFICIENT AT BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TRIAL STAGES IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action because it did not submit sufficient proof of defendant’s default. At trial Supreme Court properly held that plaintiff bank did not meet its prima facie burden because the proper foundation for the admission of business records was not provided:

… [P]laintiff failed to submit evidence establishing her default. Wilson [Wells Fargo vice president] failed to attach or incorporate any of Wells Fargo’s business records to her affidavit. Accordingly, her affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . …

“A proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures” … . At the trial in this case, Wiggins [Wells Fargo loan verification officer] testified only that he had access to Wells Fargo’s computerized records. He did not testify that he was familiar with Wells Fargo’s practices in making those records, and he failed to state that he had any knowledge regarding the plaintiff’s records. Moreover, the plaintiff did not attempt to introduce any of the relevant records into evidence. Thus, Wiggins failed to establish an evidentiary basis for his statement that the subject loan was in default … . HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assn. v Green, 2019 NY Slip Op 06482, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, , ,

BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ITS STANDING, ITS COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN THE MORTGAGE, OR ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RPAPL, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action because it presented: (1) insufficient proof of standing; (2) insufficient proof of compliance with the notice provisions of the mortgage; and (3) insufficient proof of compliance with the RPAPL notice requirements:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its standing because it did not show that it was a holder of the note at the time the action was commenced. The affidavits of Melissa Guillote and Myrna Moore, both vice presidents of loan documentation of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, nonparty Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter the loan servicer), that were submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion, conflict as to whether the plaintiff or the loan servicer possessed the note on the date the action was commenced. Moreover, neither affidavit attaches any admissible document to show that the plaintiff possessed the note endorsed in blank prior to the commencement of this action (see CPLR 4518[a] …). The affidavits also fail to show that either Guillote or Moore possessed personal knowledge of whether the plaintiff possessed the note prior to commencement of the action. …

The plaintiff also failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the conditions precedent contained in sections 15 and 22 of the mortgage, which provide that required notice to the defendants is considered given when it is mailed by first class mail or when it is actually delivered to the defendants’ notice address if sent by any other means … . …

The plaintiff also failed to show, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. Proper service of the RPAPL 1304 notice containing the statutorily mandated content is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action … . The plaintiff did not submit an affidavit of service or proof of mailing by the post office demonstrating that it properly served the defendants as prescribed by the statute … . HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assn. v Dubose, 2019 NY Slip Op 06481, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, , ,

HEARSAY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT ADMISSIBLE AS ADMISSIONS OR BUSINESS RECORDS; THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE PROHIBITED TESTIMONY ABOUT THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case and ordering a new trial, determined that hearsay statements to the effect that plaintiff’s decedent had signed an “against medical advice [AMA]” form when he allegedly refused treatment at defendant hospital were not admissible under the Dead Man’s Statute or as statements against interest or admissions, or as business records:

“A hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient” ( … see CPLR 4518[a]). Here, although the entries were germane to the decedent’s diagnosis and treatment, the defendants failed to offer foundational testimony under CPLR 4518(a) or certification under CPLR 4518(c) … . …

If an entry in the medical records “is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to the diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is evidence connecting the party to the entry'”  … . Here … the entry clearly states that the decedent’s primary care physician, not the decedent himself, was the source of the information … . …

Pursuant to CPLR 4519, otherwise known as the Dead Man’s Statute, “[u]pon the trial of an action . . . a party or a person interested in the event . . . shall not be examined as a witness in his [or her] own behalf or interest . . . against the executor, administrator or survivor of a deceased person or the committee of a mentally ill person . . . concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and the deceased person or mentally ill person, except where the executor, administrator, survivor, committee or person so deriving title or interest is examined in his [or her] own behalf, of the testimony of the mentally ill person or deceased person is given in evidence, concerning the same transaction or communication.” Here, both [witnesses] were defendants at the time they gave deposition testimony, making them interested parties under the statute … [and] they both testified to transactions or communications with the decedent and sought to offer that testimony against the decedent’s estate. …

The defendants argue that the plaintiff waived the protections of the Dead Man’s Statute by eliciting the communications at issue. However, “[t]he executor does not waive rights under the statute by taking the opponent’s deposition” … . … Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the declaration of the decedent did not fall within the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule because the defendants failed to establish that the subject statement was against the decedent’s interest when made … . Moreover, where the Dead Man’s Statute renders a witness’s testimony inadmissible, “the fact that the testimony would fall within an exception to the hearsay rule is simply irrelevant” … . Grechko v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 06478, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISION OF THE MORTGAGE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice of default provision in the mortgage. Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the condition precedent contained in section 22 of the mortgage agreement regarding the notice of default. The plaintiff’s submissions did not establish that the notice was sent by first class mail or actually delivered to the notice address if sent by other means, as required by the terms of the mortgage agreement … . PNMAC Mtge. Opportunity Fund Invs., LLC v Torres, 2019 NY Slip Op 06523, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT A PERIOD OF TIME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL CALCULATION, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE AND MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING AND REPORT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, sending the matter back for a hearing on defendant’s statutory speedy-trial motion to dismiss, determined defendant had met his burden to show a delay greater that six months but the People did not present sufficient evidence that a period of time should be excluded from the speedy trial calculation:

… [T]he defendant sustained his initial burden on the motion by alleging that a period of unexcused delay in excess of six months had elapsed since the date that he was arraigned on the felony complaint (see CPL 30.30[1][a]). In opposition, the People failed to conclusively demonstrate with “unquestionable documentary proof” that any periods within that time should be excluded (CPL 210.45[5][c] …). Moreover, the “court action sheet” provided to this Court on appeal, of which we may take judicial notice … , contained only an ambiguous notation purportedly regarding the defendant’s alleged waiver of his CPL 30.30 rights from May 5, 2014, to July 8, 2014 … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and thereafter a report on the defendant’s motion … . People v Perkins, 2019 NY Slip Op 06516, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ JANITORIAL SCHEDULE WAS MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHICH PRECLUDES DEFENDANTS’ LIABILITY; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this slip and fall case. Defendants’ presented evidence of the janitorial schedule for a particular day which was deemed sufficient to preclude liability because plaintiff did not demonstrate the schedule was manifestly unreasonable.  And plaintiff’s testimony the defendants did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged wet condition on the stairs:

Defendants’ superintendent offered testimony as to the janitorial schedule to be followed on a particular day. An established reasonable cleaning routine precludes the imposition of liability … . Where, as here, the incident occurs outside of the scheduled cleaning routine, plaintiff’s failure to raise a factual issue that such routine was manifestly unreasonable so as to require altering it warrants dismissal of the complaint … .

Furthermore, plaintiff testified that there was no wet condition on the stairs when he left the building, that upon his return a short while later he observed an alleged wet condition on the stairs, that he did not notify anyone of such condition, and that as a result of this condition he slipped and fell on the stairs as he was leaving the building a second time. Plaintiff’s testimony demonstrates that defendants did not have actual notice of the purported wet condition, or constructive notice given that the condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendants’ employees to discover and remedy it … . Thomas v Sere Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06443, First Dept 9-3-19

,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ELEVATOR DOORS CLOSED TOO FAST AND WHETHER REPAIRS TO THE DOOR COULD BE RELATED TO THE CLOSING VELOCITY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HIS THUMB WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSING DOOR; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant’s in this elevator accident case. Plaintiff alleged the elevator door closed too fast and his thumb was caught in the closing door. Plaintiff alleged he had complained to the building superintendent, a building maintenance employee and the management company about the door closing too fast. Both parties submitted affidavits from experts:

The superintendent-in-training on the date of the accident testified that he did not receive any complaints regarding problems with the elevator door. The field mechanic for [the elevator service company] testified that he did not complete any repair work with respect to the door opening and closing too quickly. He did, however, replace the elevator shoe which is a necessary component for the elevator door to be able to close … .

Plaintiff … testified that prior to his accident he had complained to the then superintendent, another building maintenance employee, and the management company numerous times regarding the velocity with which the elevator door closed. Plaintiff testified further that during one of his conversations with the management company regarding the elevator door, he was told that management would send a service company out to address the issue. Additionally, plaintiff testified that approximately two months before his accident, he witnessed a friend get hit in the shoulder by the fast closing elevator door, and that plaintiff and his mother reported this incident to the then superintendent and the management company.

The parties also presented conflicting expert affidavits regarding the potential causes of the alleged elevator door malfunction, including the purpose of the elevator shoe, and the relevance of the velocity with which the door closed as it pertained to the cause of plaintiff’s injury, which only further precludes a grant of summary judgment … . Mable v 384 E. Assoc., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06442, First Dept 9-3-19

 

,

NO REASONABLE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED ANYTHING LESS THAN SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, REQUEST FOR A JURY CHARGE ON ASSAULT THIRD WAS PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the assault second conviction, determined defendant’s request for a jury charge on assault third as a lesser-included offense was properly denied because of the severity of the victim’s injuries:

Both live and photographic evidence at trial, ten months after the attack, demonstrated that the victim’s face was disfigured with scars above one eyebrow, under the other eye, on her lip and across her neck, and that apart from the scars, her facial structure and appearance had changed significantly. Testimony from her treating physician established that she suffered at least five displaced fractures around her eye sockets and nose, which were left to heal as displaced. Viewed in a light most favorable to defendant … , we agree that no reasonable view of the evidence could support a finding that the victim sustained anything less than a serious physical injury … . People v Sipp, 2019 NY Slip Op 06432, CtApp 8-29-19

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MURDER CASE; THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE MUST BE DISMISSED AS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF MURDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant received effective assistance of counsel but the manslaughter first charge, as a lesser inclusory concurrent count of murder second, must be dismissed. Defendant argued defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the intoxication defense in this stabbing case:

Assuming, without deciding, that the evidence at trial was sufficient to warrant an intoxication charge … , defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request that charge in this case. Defense counsel prudently pursued arguments which sought to present this incident as a perfect storm of unnecessary escalation by the victim, followed by actions taken by the defendant to protect himself and his friends, all resulting in the wholly accidental death of the victim. Defense counsel could have strategically determined that requesting an intoxication charge would have undermined, or distracted from, the narrative the defense had pursued that the defendant was forced to make a decision when faced with the angry victim to protect himself and his friends. Accordingly, the defendant has not demonstrated the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel’s failure to request the intoxication charge … . People v Moreira, 2019 NY Slip Op 06414, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

,

WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant criminal possession of a weapon conviction and dismissing that count, determined the arresting officers should have conducted the warrantless search of a backpack in which the seized weapon was found. The criteria for a search incident to arrest were not met:

On April 30, 2015, at approximately 2:30 p.m., police officers went to the defendant’s home in response, in part, to information they had received from an informant that the defendant was selling drugs out of his home and kept a firearm concealed inside of a distinctive backpack. When the officers arrived, they observed the defendant smoking a marijuana cigarette on the porch of the home. Upon approaching the defendant and identifying themselves, the officers observed the defendant grab a distinctive backpack matching the description given by the informant, curse out loud, and run inside of the house. The officers pursued the defendant, who dropped the backpack inside the front doorway and proceeded up the stairs toward the second floor of the house. The defendant was apprehended and handcuffed on the stairs. After the defendant was secured, one of the officers at the scene opened the defendant’s backpack, inside of which he found a firearm and a quantity of marijuana. …

The protections embodied in article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution serve to shield citizens from warrantless intrusions on their privacy interests, including their personal effects'” … . “[E]ven a bag within the immediate control or grabbable area’ of a suspect at the time of his [or her] arrest may not be subjected to a warrantless search incident to the arrest, unless the circumstances leading to the arrest support a reasonable belief that the suspect may gain possession of a weapon or be able to destroy evidence located in the bag” … . The proof adduced at the suppression hearing failed to establish the presence of such circumstances … . People v Grimes, 2019 NY Slip Op 06411, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

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