You are here: / Evidence
,

DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED WHEN THE POLICE SEARCHED A BAG ON THE FLOOR NEAR HIM, THE KNIFE IN THE BAG SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, JUDGE PROPERLY PROCEEDED TO TRIAL WITHOUT A COMPETENCY EXAM ORDERED BY ANOTHER JUDGE AFTER DEFENDANT REFUSED TO BE EXAMINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the warrantless search of a bag next to defendant was not justified as a search of the “grabbable” area because defendant was handcuffed. Admitting the knife in evidence was harmless error, however. Another judge had ordered a sixth CPL article 730 competency exam, but, after the defendant refused to be examined, the trial judge properly commenced the trial without the ordered examination. The defendant had a long history of psychiatric problems, but the most recent exam deemed him competent:

In the circumstances presented, the court did not err when it determined that defendant’s trial would commence notwithstanding that a different judge had ordered a sixth CPL article 730 examination, which had not yet been conducted because the defendant refused to be examined … . The court acted within its discretion to decline to repeatedly issue force orders to compel defendant’s submission to the extant competency examination order. Furthermore, the court considered the long history of examinations in this case and its own observations of defendant over its prolonged history. We find nothing in People v Armlin (37 NY2d 167 [1975]) that prohibits a court from considering changed or extraordinary circumstances in denying a previously granted examination, particularly given defendant’s profound lack of cooperation and a recent examination finding him competent.

We find that the trial court should have suppressed the 12 inch knife recovered by the police during a warrantless search of defendant’s bag. Although at the time of the search the bag was on the floor within the “grabbable area” next to defendant, he was standing with his arms handcuffed behind his back … . These circumstances do not support a reasonable belief that the defendant could have either gained possession of a weapon or destroyed evidence located in the bag. Police did not show any exigency to justify the warrantless search of the bag … . People v Washington, 2019 NY Slip Op 02610, First Dept 4-4-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS WHEN PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ICY CONDITION EXISTED PRIOR TO THE STORM, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although defendant demonstrated there was a storm in progress in this slip and fall case, there was a question of fact whether the icy condition existed before the storm:

Under the storm in progress rule, a property owner will not be held liable in negligence for accidents occurring as a result of a slippery snow or ice condition “occurring during an ongoing storm or for a reasonable time thereafter” … . Here, in support of its motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the affidavit and report of a meteorologist with attached certified climatological data, which demonstrated that, at the time of the plaintiff’s accident, a wintery mix of freezing rain, sleet, and rain was falling and the temperature may have been at or below freezing. Accordingly, the defendant established, prima facie, that a storm was ongoing at the time of the plaintiff’s fall … .

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact, via her General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony, her deposition testimony, and the affidavit of her brother, as to whether the icy condition that caused her fall existed prior to the storm in progress and whether the defendant had constructive notice of the hazard … . Isabel v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 02506, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

RECORDS SUBMITTED BY THE BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the records submitted by the bank (Deutsche Bank) did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

Here, in support of its motion, Deutsche Bank submitted the mortgage, the note, and the affidavit of Nicholas Collins, a vice president of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Ocwen), Deutsche Bank’s loan servicer, in which Collins averred, inter alia, that the defendant defaulted by failing to make the payments due under the note and mortgage after January 1, 2008. The plaintiff also submitted a limited power of attorney dated June 7, 2012, which demonstrated that Ocwen was authorized to act on Deutsche Bank’s behalf. However, Deutsche Bank failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Collins, including those relating to the defendant’s alleged default, were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, since Collins, who was employed by Ocwen, did not attest that he was personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of the plaintiff (see CPLR 4518[a] … ). Thus, Collins failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of the records on which he relied, including the records concerning the defendant’s payment history, and therefore, his assertions based on those records were inadmissible … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Blount, 2019 NY Slip Op 02500, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the sand and debris in a walkway in this slip and fall case. Therefore their motions for summary judgment were properly denied:

 “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . [Defendant’s] submissions in support of its motion failed to demonstrate, prima facie, a lack of constructive notice. The affidavit of its association president merely referenced his general inspection practices and failed to indicate when the area of the walkway where the alleged slip and fall occurred was last inspected or cleaned relative to the accident … . Butts v SJF, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02491, Second Dept 4-3-19

, ,

PLAINTIFF PRESENTED ONLY SPECULATION ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted because plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall:

… [T]he landlord met her prima facie burden on her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by submitting the plaintiff’s deposition transcript which demonstrated, prima facie, that she was unable to identify the cause of her fall without resorting to speculation … . The plaintiff’s theory that she slipped on water dripping from the ceiling was speculative in light of, inter alia, her deposition testimony that she “personally didn’t see any water dripping, but there must have been a drip from the ceiling because the ground was wet.” Moreover, [third-party defendant] testified at his deposition that, although there had been a prior water leak coming from the ceiling into the kitchen, that leak was not near the location of the plaintiff’s accident. Bilska v Truszkowski, 2019 NY Slip Op 02490, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS INSPECTED OR TREATED ON THE DAY OF THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the icy condition in this slip and fall case. The defendant presented evidence of the manager’s and superintendent’s general practices but did not present evidence was inspected or treated on the day of the fall:

“To meet its initial burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, [a] defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell” … .

Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged ice condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The deposition testimony of the defendant’s site manager merely referred to her general practice of traversing the breezeway where the accident allegedly occurred, one to two times per week, but provided no evidence regarding any specific inspection of the area prior to the plaintiff’s fall … . … The superintendent’s testimony failed to provide specific details of his snow removal efforts and salting near the time of the incident, and, thus, was too general to establish lack of constructive notice … . Ahmetaj v Mountainview Condominium, 2019 NY Slip Op 02489, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S HEALTH AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS NEVER PLACED IN CONTROVERSY AND THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE WAS NOT WAIVED BY A LETTER TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY INDICATING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM DEMENTIA, ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant driver’s (Rozansky’s) medical condition at the time of this 2004 traffic accident was not “in controversy” and therefore the driver’s medical records were not discoverable. Rozansky, who subsequently died, had, in 2006, submitted a letter from his social worker to plaintiff’s attorney claiming he suffered from dementia, anxiety and depression, allegedly to be excused from a deposition, but otherwise the issue of the Rozansky’s health was not raised:

… [T]he plaintiffs failed to sustain their initial burden of demonstrating that Rozansky’s condition at the time of the accident was “in controversy” within the meaning of CPLR 3121(a) … . Furthermore, even if the plaintiffs had met that burden, neither Rozansky nor his estate waived the privilege attached to the medical records, as the defendant has not asserted a counterclaim or sought to excuse Rozansky’s conduct at the time of the accident on the basis of some condition … . Contrary to the conclusion of our dissenting colleagues, Rozansky did not place his mental condition at the time of the accident “in controversy” or waive the privilege attached to his medical records by allegedly declining to be deposed … . Neither Rozansky nor his estate have sought to excuse his conduct at the time of the accident … , due to any condition. At best, Rozansky placed his mental condition in September 2006 at issue by allegedly refusing to appear for a deposition … . The plaintiffs could have moved at that time to compel the deposition and challenged the social worker’s diagnosis. Instead, nine years after the social worker’s letter, and six years after Rozansky’s death, and after filing three notes of issue over the course of some seven years, indicating that discovery was complete and the case was ready for trial, the plaintiffs purported to use the mechanism of a trial subpoena to compel production of Rozansky’s medical records from October 22, 1999, to the present. We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that Rozansky’s alleged invocation of dementia in September 2006, by submission of a letter from his social worker, established a waiver of the privilege attached to his medical records from October 22, 1999. Peterson v Estate of John Rozansky, 2019 NY Slip Op 02568, Second Department, 4-3-19

 

,

ANONYMOUS TIP ALLEGING SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR BY MEN WEARING HOODIES GOING IN AND OUT OF A U-HAUL TRUCK DID NOT JUSTIFY PULLING OVER A U-HAUL TRUCK DRIVEN BY A MAN WEARING A HOODIE, WEAPON FOUND IN THE TRUCK SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the anonymous tip that persons were acting suspicious going in and out of a U-Haul truck and that one of the persons was wearing a brown hoodie did not justify pulling over a U-Haul truck driven by a man wearing a brown hoodie. The weapon found in the truck after the traffic stop should have been suppressed:

… [T]he police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based only on the anonymous tip of men “suspiciously” going in and out of a U-Haul truck, because the tip was insufficient to create reasonable suspicion that the individuals described were engaging in criminal activity … . The characteristics described in the anonymous tip were readily observable, and the behavior of the individuals described in the tip was consistent with the ordinary use of a U-Haul truck, as the tipster failed to identify what made the behavior suspicious for burglary … . Additionally, the tip “lacked predictive information” and was uncorroborated by the officers, as the U-Haul truck was not at the reported location when the officers arrived … . Accordingly, the information that the police received from the anonymous informant, even coupled with the officers’ own observations, did not provide them with reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop … . People v Floyd, 2019 NY Slip Op 02546, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

,

ANGRY REMARK MADE TO PROBATION OFFICER DID NOT CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION, PROBATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s angry remark made to the probation officer (threatening to “blow her up”) was not a crime and therefore did not justify the revocation of probation and incarceration (defendant has served his sentence):

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree when “he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act” (Penal Law § 195.05). “The plain meaning of the statute and the accompanying commentary clearly demonstrate that the mens rea of this crime is an intent to frustrate a public servant in the performance of a specific function” … . Although the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the probation officer was at work, there was no evidence to show that the defendant attempted to prevent her from performing a specific function. The defendant’s angry outburst, without more, was insufficient to establish a violation of Penal Law § 195.05. Thus, the Supreme Court’s finding that the defendant violated a condition of his probation by failing to lead a law-abiding life is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … . People v Brooks, 2019 NY Slip Op 02539, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

, ,

NOTE HOLDER’S COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent (the holder of the note) did not demonstrate compliance with the notice provisions of RPAPL 1304. Therefore respondent’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

“[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … . “The statute requires that such notice . . . be sent by registered or certified mail, and also by first-class mail, to the last known address of the borrower” … . …

The respondent, which submitted only a copy of the required notice, and did not submit any evidence that the notice was mailed in the manner required by the statute, failed to meet its prima facie burden with respect to the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Specifically, the respondent did not submit “an affidavit of service, [or] proof of mailing by the post office evincing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304 [by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to his last known address]” … , 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” … . Marchai Props., L.P. v Fu, 2019 NY Slip Op 02511, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

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