You are here: / Evidence
, ,

THE BANK’S UNILATERAL ATTEMPT TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IS PRECLUDED BY THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PROTECTION ACT (FAPA) WHICH APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO THIS CASE; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a letter from the bank in this foreclosure action purporting to revoke a prior acceleration of the debt did not stop the running of the six-year statute of limitations. The action was therefore time-barred. The Second Department noted that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), effective December 30, 2022, applies retroactively to this case. The FAPA essentially provides that once the debt is accelerated the six-year statute of limitations keeps running despite any attempt to “unilaterally waive, postpone, cancel, toll, revive or reset the accrual” of the foreclosure action:

Applying FAPA here, the revocation letter did not de-accelerate the mortgage debt nor did it “revive or reset” the statute of limitations … . Since the plaintiff commenced this action more than six years after the initial acceleration of the mortgage debt, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred (see CPLR 213[4] …). US Bank Trust, N.A. v Horowitz, 2025 NY Slip Op 03095, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: Here the bank attempted to revoke a prior acceleration of the debt by sending defendants a “revocation letter.” The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), which applies retroactively to this case, rendered the attempted revocation a nullity. Therefore the letter did not stop the running of the six-year statute of limitations and the foreclosure action was time-barred.​

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS STAIRCASE SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s deposition testimony adequately identified the causes of his staircase slip and fall and raised a question of fact about the defendant property owner’s constructive notice of the condition of the staircase. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

“In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner . . . who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . “[A] defendant moving for summary judgment can [also] make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of the plaintiff’s fall without engaging in speculation” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his fall without resorting to speculation … . In support of her motion, the defendant submitted, among other things, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, wherein he testified that he could not see where he was stepping because of poor lighting conditions in the stairwell, and as he attempted to place his left foot on a step, either the handrail shook or his foot slipped on the carpet, and he felt himself going backward. As the plaintiff’s left foot was in the air, his right foot slipped backwards because the carpet was worn. As such, the plaintiff identified the cause of his fall as a combination of the lighting, the handrail, and the poor condition of the carpet. Therefore, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what had caused him to fall … . In addition, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that she did not have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition … . Fitzmorris v Alexander, 2025 NY Slip Op 03044, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: If a plaintiff identifies a combination of factors which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall, the plaintiff has not failed to identify the proximate cause of the fall. Here plaintiff alleged poor lighting and either the handrail shook or his foot slipped on the worn carpet. Those allegations were deemed to have sufficiently identified the proximate cause(s) of the fall and to have raised a question of fact about defendant property owner’s constructive notice of the condition of the staircase.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO COULD NOT SAY HE WOULD NOT HOLD DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY AGAINT HIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A POLICE OFFICER WHO SPENT ONLY 10 OR 15 MINUTES WITH THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT IN A VIDEO, DESPITE THE CHANGE IN DEFENDANT’S APPEARANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s for cause challenge to a prospective juror who said he would hold defendant’s failure to testify against him should have been granted. Because there will be a new trial, the Second Department noted that a police officer who had limited contact with the defendant should not have been allowed to identify the defendant in a video:

The prospective juror maintained that he was unable to “promise” that his decision would not be affected if the defendant did not testify at trial. Since the prospective juror made statements that cast doubt on his ability to render an impartial verdict under the proper legal standards and did not, upon further inquiry, provide unequivocal assurances that he would be able to render a verdict based solely upon the evidence adduced at trial, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s for-cause challenge … .

… [W]e note that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in allowing a police detective to identify the defendant as the individual depicted in a surveillance video. Generally, “‘lay witnesses must testify only to the facts,’ and not to their opinions and conclusions drawn from the facts,’ as it is the jury’s province ‘to draw the appropriate inferences arising from the facts'” … . In determining whether to permit this testimony, a court must consider “whether the witness has had sufficient contact with the defendant to achieve a level of familiarity that renders the lay opinion helpful” … . In making this assessment, courts may consider (1) the witness’s general level of familiarity with the defendant’s appearance, (2) whether the witness’s familiarity spanned an extended period of time and variety of circumstances, (3) whether the witness was familiar with the defendant’s appearance at the time the surveillance footage was taken, and (4) whether the witness was familiar with the defendant’s customary manner of dress or clothing (see id. at 648-649). Here, there was no basis for the court to conclude that the police detective was more likely than the jury to correctly determine whether the defendant was depicted in the surveillance video … . The police detective testified that he spent a total of 10 to 15 minutes with the defendant. While there was testimony that the defendant’s appearance had changed prior to the trial, through weight loss and cutting his hair, “the record is devoid of any other circumstances suggesting that the jury——which had ample opportunity to view [the] defendant——would be any less able than the detective to determine whether [the] defendant was, in fact, the individual depicted in the video” … . People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 03087, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: A challenge to a prospective juror who cannot state unequivocally he or she would not hold defendant’s failure to testify against the defendant must be granted.

Practice Point: A police officer who is allowed to identify the defendant in a video is offering an opinion, not facts. Here the officer had spent only 10 to 15 minutes with the defendant and therefore was not qualified to offer an opinion on the identity of the person depicted in the video.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING DAILY SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER, THE PLAINTIFF’S AND A FACULTY MEMBER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S PROPENSITY FOR ABUSE AND THE ABUSE ITSELF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment in this Child Victims Act case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged daily sexual abuse by a teacher. The school district submitted plaintiff’s deposition transcript and a faculty member’s deposition transcript in support of the summary judgment motion. The plaintiff’s allegations of daily abuse and the faculty member’s testimony that students had informed him of the abuse and he believed other teachers were aware of the abuse raised questions of fact about negligent hiring and retention of the teacher and negligent supervision of the plaintiff:

In support of their motion, the defendants submitted … a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that over the course of the school year, while he was in the seventh grade, he was sexually abused by the teacher daily and that the teacher’s abusive propensities were common and open knowledge in the middle school’s community. The defendants also submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of a faculty member who was employed by the school district at the same time as the teacher, who testified that students had informed him that the teacher engaged in inappropriate conduct and that he believed other teachers were aware of said alleged conduct. Therefore, the defendants’ own submissions demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the alleged abuse of the plaintiff and of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and as to whether the defendants’ supervision of the plaintiff and the teacher was negligent … . Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, the court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . T.F. v Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 03042, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: In Child Victims Act cases alleging frequent sexual abuse by a teacher, courts are increasingly willing to hold that the plaintiff’s allegations of frequent abuse alone are sufficient to raise a question of fact about constructive notice on the part of the school.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS GRAND LARCENY CASE WAS DETAINED BY STORE SECURITY GUARDS; DEFENSE COUNSEL FIRST LEARNED THE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE STORE’S SECURITY PERSONNEL ON THE EVE OF THE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WERE AGENTS OF THE POLICE; THEREFORE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO SUBPOENA THE STORE’S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new “state action” hearing, determined defense counsel’s request for an adjournment to subpoena information about the store security guards’ employment should have been granted. The issue is whether the store security guards who detained the defendant in this grand larceny case were licensed to exercise police powers or acted as agents of the police. Defense counsel learned the name of the store’s lead investigator at the time of defendant’s detention on the eve of the state action hearing. The First Department noted that defense counsel could not properly subpoena the employment information without knowing the identities of the people involved:

… [W]e find that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel a short adjournment. In denying the requested adjournment, the court found that defendant “could have done that [subpoena … records] a long time ago, maybe even when this appeal was being perfected.” On this appeal, the People make a similar argument that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the adjournment because defense counsel could have subpoenaed the materials during the pendency of this appeal. The problem with these arguments is that this Court had already recognized that, without information about the identity of the officers involved in defendant’s arrest, defense counsel was not in a position to meaningfully subpoena records … .

Contrary to the court’s suggestion, this is not the situation where defense counsel failed to exercise due diligence. In fact, as we held, without knowing the names of the store security guards involved in defendant’s detention, defendant was in no better position to subpoena the employer material than when he filed his initial motion. Thus, it was only upon learning the identity of one member of the security team that the defense could meaningfully begin to investigate whether the security guards were state actors. People v Sneed, 2025 NY Slip Op 03026, First Dept 5-20-25

Practice Point: If a defendant is detained by store security guards, the detention may implicate constitutional protections if the security guards are licensed to exercise police powers or are agents of the police. The defense, therefore, may be entitled to a so-called “state action” hearing. To subpoena the appropriate store employment records, defense counsel is entitled to the identities of the security guards involved in defendant’s detention.

 

, ,

GIVING THE CORRECT “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” JURY INSTRUCTION THREE TIMES WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER WHO ALLEGEDLY SHOT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF A POLICE OFFICER’S DISCIPLINARY RECORD (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) although the judge accurately instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence three times, the judge failed to acknowledge the erroneous instruction, requiring reversal; (2) the judge should have allowed cross-examination of a police officer about a civil case in which the officer was alleged to have shot the plaintiff after plaintiff was subdued; and (3) the judge should have granted defendant’s motion for an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record:

Notwithstanding that the court instructed the trial jury accurately and at length with regard to the presumption in its preliminary instructions, in another instruction at a break in the testimony of the first witness, and in its closing instructions, the court did not satisfy the requirement, clearly enunciated in People v Harrison (85 NY2d 891 [1995]), that “to obviate an erroneous instruction upon a material point, it must be withdrawn in such explicit terms as to preclude the inference that the jury might have been influenced by it” … . A withdrawal in explicit terms cannot be accomplished without acknowledging the erroneous instruction, identifying the error, and providing a correct instruction … .

… [T]he court improvidently exercised its discretion, under the standard set forth in People v Smith (27 NY3d 652 [2016]), in not permitting cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a civil suit, in which a testifying police officer in the present case was a defendant alleged to have shot the plaintiff in the leg in that case after he was subdued by police officers. The existence of the suit provided a “good faith basis for inquiring,” and the allegations of excessive force were “relevant to the credibility of the law enforcement witness” … . In light of the principle “that the right of cross-examination is implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation and helps assure the accuracy of the truth-determining process” … , the seriousness of the allegation that the officer accidentally shot a [*2]suspect in the leg was sufficient to allow inquiry into the facts underlying the lawsuit.

… [T]he court should have granted defendant’s motion pursuant to People v Gissendanner (48 NY2d 543 [1979]) to the extent of conducting an in camera review of the officer’s disciplinary record, rather than forbidding all cross-examination regarding the allegations in an underlying civil suit. … The defendant’s motion should be granted when the defendant “put[s] forth in good faith . . . some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the file will bear such fruit and that the quest for its contents is not merely a desperate grasping for straws” … . Here, defendant alleged that the officer inflicted pain on him by twisting his wrist when he was already subdued, and the defense learned of two lawsuits in which the officer was alleged to have engaged in similar conduct. People v Fishbein, 2025 NY Slip Op 02996, First Dept 5-15-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for (1) the procedure for correcting an erroneous jury instruction, (2) the criteria for allowing the cross-examination of a police officer about a civil suit in which it is alleged the officer shot the plaintiff, and (3) the criteria for granting a motion to conduct an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record.

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF HAD POSSESSION OF THE NOTE PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate standing in this foreclosure action. The affidavit submitted to demonstrate plaintiff had possession of the note prior to commencing the action was hearsay:

… [T]he plaintiff relied on Harris’s affidavit to demonstrate that it had possession of the note prior to commencing this action. Harris averred, in relevant part, that the plaintiff received physical delivery of the original note on September 5, 2013. As the defendant correctly notes, Harris failed to attach any business record to her affidavit to demonstrate that fact or to aver that she had personal knowledge of the physical delivery of the note. Accordingly, Harris’s averment that the plaintiff had possession of the note prior to the commencement of this action was inadmissible hearsay and insufficient to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s standing … . Nationstar Mortage, LLC v Guarino, 2025 NY Slip Op 02925, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Whoever submits an affidavit stating the plaintiff in a foreclosure action had possession of the note before the action was commenced must attach a probative business record or demonstrate personal knowledge of the delivery of the note, not the case here.

 

, ,

THE AFFIANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PROCEDURES AND DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE ATTACHED BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS PROPERLY MAILED, A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the judgment of foreclosure, determined the plaintiff did not prove the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure, a condition precedent for foreclosure. The affidavit did not demonstrate the affiant had personal knowledge of the relevant mailing procedures and did not provide an adequate foundation for relevant business records:

… [T]he affidavits submitted in support of Bank of America’s second motion … for summary judgment on the complaint … did not establish the affiants’ personal knowledge of the standard office mailing procedures of LenderLive, the third-party vendor that apparently sent the RPAPL 1304 notices on behalf of Bank of America … . The affidavits also “failed to address the nature of [Bank of America’s] relationship with LenderLive and whether LenderLive’s records were incorporated into [Bank of America’s] own records or routinely relied upon in its business” … . Bank of America thus “failed to lay a foundation for the admission of the transaction report generated by LenderLive” … .. Accordingly, Bank of America failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of Bank of America’s second motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and for an order of reference. U.S. Bank N.A. v Bravo, 2025 NY Slip Op 02953, Second Dept 5-14-25

Same issues and result in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Murray, 2025 NY Slip Op 02960, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Any affidavit submitted by the bank in a foreclosure action to prove the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure must demonstrate the affiant’s personal knowledge of the mailing procedures and must lay a foundation for the admissibility of any business records relied upon to prove proper mailing.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE INFORMANT WHO CALLED 911 ABOUT A “MAN WITH A GUN” WAS KNOWN TO THE POLICE AND MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE RELIABLE, THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING ABOUT THE BASIS FOR THE INFORMANT’S KNOWLEDGE; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE POLICE HAD REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP THE DEFENDANT; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the suppression motion should have been granted. Although the informant who made the 911 call was known to the police, there was no testimony at the suppression hearing about the basis of the informant’s knowledge. The stop of defendant’s vehicle for failure to use a turn signal did not justify removing defendant from the vehicle and handcuffing him:

When the People seek to rely on information provided by an informant to establish the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a vehicle stop, “‘it [is] essential that at least some showing be made of the basis of the informant’s knowledge'” … . Where there is no testimony demonstrating how the informant knew the defendant was engaged in illegality, such as the possession of a weapon, reasonable suspicion cannot be found … .

… Neither the sergeant nor the officer testified as to how the informant, who had called the 911 emergency number, knew that the defendant had a gun. Therefore, the People failed to demonstrate that the information provided by the informant constituted “more than unsubstantiated rumor, unfounded accusation or conclusory characterization” … .

In the absence of the People eliciting testimony at the suppression hearing that sufficiently explained how the informant knew the defendant was in possession of a weapon, the County Court erred in concluding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant … . Moreover, while the informant did identify the defendant from across the street, this identification occurred well after the defendant had been stopped and detained by the officers. “‘Where a police encounter is not justified in its inception, it cannot be validated by a subsequently acquired suspicion'” … .

… [W]hile the informant, who was known to the responding officers, may be presumed to be reliable, the basis of his knowledge was not sufficiently established at the suppression hearing. People v Thomison, 2025 NY Slip Op 02938, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: At a suppression hearing, the People have the burden to prove the legality of the police conduct. Where an informant known to the police calls 911 to report a “man with a gun,” the reliability of the informant may be presumed. But the People must still prove the basis for the informant’s knowledge. Where, as here, there is no testimony demonstrating how the informant learned about the “man with a gun,” the People have not met their burden of proof.

 

,

IN THIS STREET-STOP-FRISK CASE, THE POLICE OFFICER TESTIFIED HE SAW DEFENDANT PUT A BLACK OBJECT IN HIS JACKET POCKET, BUT HE DID NOT TESTIFY HE HAD A REASONABLE SUSPICION THE OBJECT WAS A FIREARM; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE STOP AND FRISK; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECON DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of the suppression motion in this street-stop case, determined the police officer, Espinal, did not have a reasonable suspicion that the object defendant put in his pocket was a firearm. Therefore the officer did not have a sufficient reason to grab defendant’s pocket:

While driving down 193rd Street toward a dead end, Detective Espinal spotted a vehicle illegally parked in the middle of the dead end’s cul-de-sac. Detective Espinal testified that there appeared to be an individual in the driver’s seat and another individual standing outside the vehicle by the driver’s window. Detective Espinal observed that the individual standing outside the vehicle, who was later identified as the defendant, was holding a black object in his right hand, although Detective Espinal could not identify the object. Detective Espinal testified that when the defendant made eye contact with him, the defendant put the object into the right front pocket of the jacket that he was wearing and proceeded to walk toward the police vehicle with his hands in his jacket pockets. As the defendant continued to walk toward the police vehicle, Detective Espinal exited the vehicle and directed the defendant to take his hands out of his jacket pockets and put his hands up. Although the defendant initially complied, as Detective Espinal got closer, the defendant began to reach down toward his right jacket pocket. Upon seeing the defendant reach for his jacket pocket, Detective Espinal grabbed the pocket and felt a firearm inside. Detective Espinal withdrew a firearm from the defendant’s pocket and instructed one of his partners to place the defendant under arrest. * * *

… Detective Espinal did not have the required reasonable suspicion to frisk the defendant. Detective Espinal’s testimony is clear. He saw the defendant outside the illegally parked vehicle and watched as the defendant placed a black object in his jacket pocket. Detective Espinal did not testify as to what he thought the object was or whether he had any reasonable suspicion to believe that the object was a weapon of any kind, let alone a firearm. The only instance of illegality that Detective Espinal testified to was the illegally parked vehicle, which would not have provided the officers with a basis to frisk the defendant … . People v Taylor, 2025 NY Slip Op 02937, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: The People have the burden of demonstrating the legality of the police conduct in a stop and frisk. Here the officer testified he saw defendant put a black object in his pocket, but he did not testify he suspected the object was a firearm. The fact that the incident took place in a high-crime area was not enough to provide reasonable suspicion sufficient for a stop and frisk.​

 

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