You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WAS PROPERLY DENIED AND THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s conviction, determined the defendant’s request to proceed pro se was properly denied and there was support in the record for the existence of probable cause to arrest. The Court of Appeals did not discuss the facts. The link to the 2nd Department decision is here:

The trial court concluded—based upon, among other things, its own observations of defendant’s conduct throughout these lengthy proceedings and the testimony of defendant’s attending physician—that defendant engaged in malingering insofar as he was competent to proceed but persisted in his efforts to avoid trial. Inasmuch as defendant “engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues,” we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request to proceed pro se …. Moreover, the existence of record support for the determination of the courts below that the pursuit of defendant by the police was justified by a “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity forecloses our further review of that issue … . People v Gregory, 2019 NY Slip Op 04450, CtApp 6-6-19

 

,

THE DEFENSE MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION WAS APPROPRIATE, THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE THE WITNESS’S TESTIMONY WOULD NOT BE CUMULATIVE ON THE DEFENDANT, THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE THE TESTIMONY WOULD BE CUMULATIVE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, determined that the trial court’s analysis of the defense request for a missing witness jury instruction improperly shifted the burden to the defendant to show that the testimony would not be cumulative. The witness, Dees, was with the shooting victim and was shot himself. The witness was the first to see the shooter in a car that passed by and tried to push the shooter away when the shooter approached:

In Gonzalez [68 NY2d 424], we established the analytical framework for deciding a request for a missing witness instruction. The proponent initially must demonstrate only three things via a prompt request for the charge: (1) “that there is an uncalled witness believed to be knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case,” (2) “that such witness can be expected to testify favorably to the opposing party,” and (3) “that such party has failed to call” the witness to testify … . The party opposing the charge can defeat the initial showing by accounting for the witness’s absence or demonstrating that the charge would not be appropriate … . “This burden can be met by demonstrating,” among other things, that “the testimony would be cumulative to other evidence” … . If the party opposing the charge meets its burden by rebutting the prima facie showing, the proponent retains the ultimate burden to show that the charge would be appropriate … . We have repeatedly reiterated Gonzalez’s specific burden-shifting analysis … , but we have never required the proponent of a missing witness charge to negate cumulativeness to meet the prima facie burden … . * * *

Given that defendant, as the proponent of the missing witness charge, met his initial burden, the People were required to rebut that showing by establishing why the charge was inappropriate. They failed to do so. The People simply asserted, without explanation, that Dees’s testimony on the issue of identification would be cumulative because “there is absolutely no indication that [Dees] would be able to provide anything that wasn’t provided by [the victim].” This conclusory argument was insufficient to satisfy the People’s burden in response to defendant’s prima facie showing … . … Dees’s testimony would not have been “trivial or cumulative”; due to inconsistencies in the victim’s descriptions of the incident and what the shooter was wearing, the issue of identification was “in sharp dispute . . . and the testimony of the only additional person who was present [during the shooting] might have made the difference” … . People v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 04447, CtApp 6-6-19

 

,

THE DEFENDANTS’ PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANT SANTIAGO’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF ICE ON THE DRIVEWAY AND SANTIAGO’S NOTICE OF IT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants, the property owners, were not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. The defendants submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the ice formed sometime between the middle of the day on the 16th and 7 a.m. on the 17th when he fell. The property owner, Santiago, testified he saw no ice on the afternoon of the 16th and saw no ice when he returned to the property at 11 a.m. on the 17th. The defendants’ papers, therefore, demonstrated there were questions of fact:

In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that on February 16, 2016, precipitation had fallen, that it stopped sometime after he picked up his children at their school at noon, that when he returned to the subject property, the driveway was not icy, and that the neighbor whom the defendants had retained to plow the driveway had done so after the precipitation stopped but did not apply any salt. The plaintiff also testified that, on February 17, 2016, at approximately 7:00 a.m., he slipped and fell on thick ice that was cloudy and dirty in appearance and which covered the entire driveway. He further testified that the ice started forming on February 16, 2016, either sometime in the middle of the day, or sometime between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the next day.

The defendants also submitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of the defendant Christian Santiago, who testified that the tenants did not have any responsibilities with respect to snow or ice removal from the driveway. He also testified that he visited the subject property to inspect ongoing renovation work in one of the apartments in the morning or early afternoon of February 16, 2016, that it was not snowing or raining at that time, and that he did not observe any ice on the driveway. Santiago further testified that, when he returned to the property the following day, at approximately 11:00 a.m. or noon, he observed a snowbank measuring anywhere from four-to-five feet or six-to-seven feet high at the end of the driveway created by the plow the day before, that he did not see any ice on the driveway, and that he noticed that there was salt on the concrete landing but not on the driveway. …

The defendants failed to submit any meterological data for either February 16 or 17, 2016, or evidence of the condition of the driveway subsequent to it being plowed by the neighbor or within a reasonable time prior to the incident … .

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendants showed the existence of triable issues of fact and did not suffice to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment … . Ghent v Santiago, 2019 NY Slip Op 04362, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, ,

THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE CREATED BY THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT WAS REBUTTED BY DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT CLAIMING THAT THE PLACE WHERE SERVICE WAS MADE HAD NO CONNECTION WITH HIM OR HIS BUSINESS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether the defendant corporation, Advanced, and its principal, Trimarco, were properly served with the summons and complaint. The presumption of proper service created by the process server’s affidavit was rebutted by Trimarco’s affidavit stating that the place where service was made, and any person at that location, had no connection to him or the business:

Trimarco submitted an affidavit in which he claimed that both he and Advanced were improperly served at a residence that he had “sold to an unrelated third party three years ago.” He further averred that, on the date service was purportedly made, he had no relationship with any person at [the residence], and no person at that address was authorized to accept service on behalf of Advanced. …

The Supreme Court should not have, in effect, denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint without first conducting a hearing. “Ordinarily, a process server’s affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service and, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service” … . “[W]here there is a sworn denial that a defendant was served with process, the affidavit of service is rebutted, and the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction at a hearing by a preponderance of the evidence” … .

With respect to service on Advanced, CPLR 311(a)(1) provides that personal service upon a corporation shall be made, among other ways, “to an officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service.” Personal service on a corporation must be made to one of the persons authorized by the statute to accept service, and an attempt to serve such person by substitute service pursuant to CPLR 308(2) or (4) will be insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the corporation … . …

With respect to service on Trimarco, CPLR 308(2) provides, in relevant part, that service may be made upon a natural person “by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served.” Here, Trimarco’s detailed affidavit, in which he claimed that the address where service was made was not his actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode, was sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the plaintiff’s affidavit of service … . Finnegan v Trimarco, 2019 NY Slip Op 04361, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

,

THE MOVEMENT OF THE COMMON CARRIER’S VAN WAS NOT UNUSUAL OR VIOLENT, THE PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the common carrier’s motion for summary judgment in this personal injury case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged injury caused when defendant’s van hit an expansion joint in the highway:

“To establish a prima facie case of negligence against a common carrier for injuries sustained by a passenger as a result of the movement of the vehicle, the plaintiff must establish that the movement consisted of a jerk or lurch that was unusual [and] violent” … . There must be evidence that the movement of the vehicle was “of a different class than the jerks and jolts commonly experienced in city bus travel,'” and, therefore, attributable to the negligence of defendant … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through its submission of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that the van in which he was a passenger was constantly jostled up and down, and that when the van hit one of the expansion joints in the highway, he heard something in his neck snap. The plaintiff admitted that his body was not physically moving up and down, and that the bumps and jolts of the van were only putting pressure on his lower back. Thus, the evidence established that the movement of the van at issue was not unusual and violent … . Petrie v Golden Touch Transp. of NY, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04431, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, , ,

ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD CAN APPEAL A CHANGE OF CUSTODY TO WHICH THE CHILD IS OPPOSED, THE CHILD IS AGGRIEVED FOR APPELLATE PURPOSES, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD A FULL CUSTODY HEARING WITHOUT FIRST ASSESSING THE ALLEGATIONS OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, AN APPELLATE COURT CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PRIOR MODIFICATION PETITIONS, AND FAMILY COURT MUST GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE CHILD’S WISHES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, that mother’s petition for a change in custody should not have been granted. The opinion is too comprehensive to be fairly summarized here. Of particular interest is the Second Department’s conclusion that Family Court should have not have held a full custody hearing without first determining whether the allegations warranted it. The Second Department took judicial notice of two prior petitions for modification which were dismissed, the last petition being very close in time to the instant petition.  The opinion is well worth reading in its entirety. It addresses several substantive issues and distinguishes some 4th Department authority. The Second Department summarized the issues and holdings as follows:

This appeal raises several important issues pertinent to child custody determinations. We conclude that: (a) the attorney for the child has the authority to pursue an appeal on behalf of the child from an order determining the custody of the child; (b) the child is aggrieved, for appellate purposes, by an order determining custody; (c) the Family Court should not have held a full custody hearing without first determining whether the mother had alleged and established a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry into whether the child’s best interests were served by the existing custodial arrangement; and (d) the Family Court erred in failing to give due consideration to the expressed preferences of the child, who is a teenager. Matter of Newton v McFarlane, 2019 NY Slip Op 04386, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

,

SURR0GATE’S COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE ADMINISTRATOR’S PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A SHORT SALE OF DECEDENT’S REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS WORTH SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE MORTGAGE WHICH ENCUMBERED THE PROPERTY, CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS IN THE PETITION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly denied the petition by the administrator of decedent’s estate seeking authority to conduct a “short sale” of real property that was worth substantially less than the mortgage which encumbered the property. Surrogate’s Court determined the proof offered in support of the petition fell short in several respects:

A decedent’s personal property is the primary source for the payment of the decedent’s debts, and land cannot be used as a source of funds unless the personalty has been exhausted … . However, the primary source for payment of a mortgage debt is the mortgaged premises (…EPTL 3-3.6). To obtain court authorization to sell real property to satisfy a decedent’s debts, including mortgage debts, a personal representative must demonstrate that the decedent’s personal property is insufficient to satisfy the debts (see SCPA 1902[3] …).

A Surrogate has ” the right to decree intelligently, and upon equitable principles, and to order [executors’ and administrators’] conduct upon principles of justice and of reason,'” and may not ” rubber stamp'” an application without examining its basis … . Here, we agree with the Surrogate’s Court’s determination that, without other evidence, the petitioner’s conclusory assertions regarding the extent of the decedent’s personal property and debts, the existence and status of the mortgage, and the identities of potential distributees were insufficient to support the relief he sought. Matter of Kahn, 2019 NY Slip Op 04384, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DRIVER’S CLAIM HE COULDN’T STOP BECAUSE HIS CAR SKIDDED ON WET METAL GRATING DID NOT ESTABLISH THE REAR-END COLLISION WAS UNAVOIDABLE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. The defendants’ claim that the defendant driver, Flippen, couldn’t stop because the skidded on wet metal grating did not raise a question of fact:

“[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, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence” … . Here, the plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, as the evidence submitted in support of their motion demonstrated that the injured plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendants’ contention that Flippen applied his brakes but was unable to stop because his vehicle skidded on a wet metal grating on the roadway was insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence arising from the rear-end collision because they failed to demonstrate that Flippen’s skid on known road conditions was unavoidable … . Morgan v Flippen, 2019 NY Slip Op 04377, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION HAD EXPIRED SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THE BANK UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATION WITH DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING THE DEBT HAD NEVER BEEN ACCELERATED; CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMISSAL BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND ACCELERATION OF A MORTGAGE DEBT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined that the bank’s (Deutsche Bank’s) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s RPAPL article 15 action to cancel and discharge the mortgage should have been granted. The bank had started foreclosure proceedings in 2007 and plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the statute of limitations had run. However, the 2007 action had been dismissed because the bank did not have standing at the time it was brought. The Second Department determined the documentary proof of the dismissal of the 2007 action demonstrated, as a matter of law, that the debt had never been accelerated and, therefore, the statute of limitations had never started running. The decision provides a succinct and clear explanation of the requirements for a dismissal based on documentary evidence and the requirements for accelerating a mortgage debt:

… [C]ontrary to the plaintiff’s contention and the opinion of our dissenting colleague, the commencement of the foreclosure action, which was dismissed on the ground that Deutsche Bank lacked standing, was ineffective to constitute a valid exercise of the option to accelerate the debt since Deutsche Bank did not have the authority to accelerate the debt at that time … . The plaintiff did not identify the specific time when the mortgage was actually, legally accelerated. Furthermore, the notices of default were nothing more than letters discussing acceleration as a possible future event, which do not “constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause” … . …

Consequently, the allegations in the complaint that the debt was accelerated as of April 30, 2007, the date when Deutsche Bank commenced the underlying foreclosure action, or prior to April 30, 2007, when the notices of default were sent, are utterly refuted by the documentary evidence submitted by Deutsche Bank, which included the written assignment of the mortgage [dated after April 30, 2007) “together with the . . . note” and the October 2009 order [dismissing the foreclosure action], in support of that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint … . Moreover, Deutsche Bank, through the evidence it submitted with its motion, demonstrated that the plaintiff’s allegation that the statute of limitations to foreclose the subject mortgage had expired was “not a fact at all,” and that “it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it,” warranting dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) … . J & JT Holding Corp. v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 04366, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

, ,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THAT INFANT PLAINTIFF WOULD MOVE LOGS STACKED AT THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN FALL WHEN JUMPING FROM LOG TO LOG, INFANT PLAINTIFF CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND ASSUMED THE RISK (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined the out-of-possession landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly granted. Infant plaintiff (Deandre) had moved some logs from the side of the property and was jumping from log to log when he fell:

Defendant testified that he had had the tree cut down and the logs stacked along a property fence line several years earlier and had never seen the logs anywhere else on the property. Deandre testified that he and his friends had arranged the logs in a line and were jumping from log to log when he fell. The record shows that no one had complained to defendant, an out-of-possession landlord, about the logs before the accident, and Deandre testified that he had been playing on them for about 10 minutes when he fell.

Plaintiffs contend that it was foreseeable that children would move the logs. However, absent evidence of earlier incidents involving the logs or any complaint made to defendant about the logs, the possibility of children playing with them does not render the presence of the logs in the backyard foreseeably dangerous … .

Plaintiffs also failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether Deandre could fully appreciate the risks of jumping onto logs. As Deandre himself created the danger by setting up and jumping on the logs while playing with his friends, plaintiffs cannot show that he was faced with a risk that was unassumed, S.-B. v Radincic, 2019 NY Slip Op 04324, First Dept 6-4-19

 

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