You are here: / Evidence
, ,

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN REPLY DID NOT SATISFY PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the documentary evidence relied upon by plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not meet the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. The court noted that documents submitted in reply could not be considered to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of making out a prima facie case:

Although “the mere filing of papers received from other entities, even if they are retained in the regular course of business, is insufficient to qualify the documents as business records, such records are nonetheless admissible if the recipient can establish personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures, or that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient’s own records or routinely relied upon by the recipient in its business” … . While [plaintiff’s vice president] averred, inter alia, that his affidavit was based on books and records maintained by the plaintiff, he did not state that Bank of America’s records were provided to the plaintiff and incorporated into the plaintiff’s own records, or that the plaintiff routinely relied upon such records in its business, or that he had personal knowledge of Bank of America’s business practices and procedures. Thus, he failed to lay the proper foundation for admission of these records … . The affidavit and documents submitted by the plaintiff for the first time in reply to the defendants’ opposition could not be used to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden.​ Tri-State Loan Acquisitions III, LLC v Litkowski, 2019 NY Slip Op 03398, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

,

EVEN THOUGH THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY WAS NOT REBUTTED WITH RESPECT TO MOTHER’S HUSBAND IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL UNDER A ‘BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD’ ANALYSIS TO ADJUDICATE THE RESPONDENT, WITH WHOM A CHILD-PARENT BOND HAD DEVELOPED, THE FATHER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel should have been invoked by Family Court in this paternity proceeding to find it was in the best interests of the child to adjudicate the respondent, Ricardo R. E., father of the child. The petitioner-mother was married to Jorge E. T. at the time the child was conceived and born. Family Court relied on the presumption of legitimacy to adjudicate Jorge E. T. the father. The Second Department agreed with Family Court’s finding that the presumption of legitimacy was not rebutted:

Even if the presumption of legitimacy applies, the Family Court must proceed to an analysis of the best interests of the child before deciding whether to order a test … . To that end, the “paramount concern” in a proceeding to establish paternity is the best interests of the child, and the Family Court should hold a hearing addressed to that determination … . Importantly, biology is not dispositive in a court’s paternity determination … . …

… [W]e agree with the Family Court that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of legitimacy by clear and convincing evidence … . Nevertheless, regardless of the applicability of the presumption of legitimacy, the Family Court should not have refused to consider the issue of equitable estoppel raised by the petitioner and Ricardo R. E. in response to the husband’s assertion of paternity … . As relevant here, the doctrine “is a defense in a paternity proceeding which, among other applications, precludes a man from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man” (… see … Family Ct Act § 522). It is significant that “courts impose equitable estoppel to protect the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship” … . While this doctrine is invoked in a variety of situations, “whether it is being used in the offensive posture to enforce rights or the defensive posture to prevent rights from being enforced, [it] is only to be used to protect the best interests of the child” … . For that reason, this dispute does not involve the equities between or among the adults. The case turns exclusively on the best interests of the child … . Matter of Onorina C.T. v Ricardo R.E., 2019 NY Slip Op 03345, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE POLICE RECEIVED AN ANONYMOUS TIP THAT A MAN MATCHING DEFENDANT’S DESCRIPTION HAD A GUN, THE POLICE SAW NO SIGN OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN THEY APPROACHED AND QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT, THE SUBSEQUENT SEIZURE AND FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT WAS ILLEGAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the police illegally seized and frisked the defendant when they had only a level two right to inquire. The police were given an anonymous tip that a black man in a bodega wearing a black coat with a fur hood had a gun. The defendant matched the description, but he was seized and frisked in the absence of any sign of criminal activity. The fact that the anonymous tip tended to identify a specific person was not enough to justify the seizure. The handgun should have been suppressed:

The police may not stop and frisk a person based solely on information furnished by an anonymous source that the person is carrying a gun … . Since an anonymous tip “seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity,” it can only give rise to reasonable suspicion if accompanied by sufficient indicia of reliability … . The tip must “be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person” .​.. . …

One of the officers asked defendant if everything was okay, and he replied in the affirmative. Defendant then attempted to pass by the officers and exit the store. He was prevented from exiting when one of the officers “sidestepped to [his] right,” in order to “prevent [defendant] from leaving the store.” The officer testified at the hearing that they “decided to frisk [defendant] for [their] safety, since it came over as male with a firearm and he fit the description.” They walked defendant to the counter, which was 5 to 10 feet away. Defendant put his hands on the counter, and the officers proceeded to frisk him. The officer testified that defendant placed his hand inside his jacket pocket, whereupon he used force to pull defendant’s wrist from the pocket. The officer testified that when he grabbed defendant’s wrist a silver firearm fell to the ground.

The People argue that defendant’s action in putting his hand in his pocket gave rise to reasonable suspicion. The problem with this argument is that defendant was already seized prior to this point.  People v Brown, 2019 NY Slip Op 03305, First Dept 4-30-19

,

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE ICY CONDITION EXISTED BEFORE 10 INCHES OF SNOW FELL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE ICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the icy condition existed before the snow fell and defendants didn’t demonstrate a lack of notice of the icy condition:

Although it is undisputed that about 10 inches of snow fell about two hours before the … accident, Supreme Court should have denied [defendants’] summary judgment because their submissions failed to address the complaint’s allegations that the ice was on the sidewalk before that storm and that they received notice that it was there. Specifically, they failed to present evidence from someone with knowledge as to whether either entity received a complaint about the location before the storm commenced and the area’s condition before the new precipitation fell. Wolf v St. Vincent’s Catholic Med. Ctrs. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 03293, First Dept 4-30-19

 

, ,

REPORT OF FIRE MARSHAL, WHO HAD NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF HIS INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE, WAS ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO THE BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff could not defeat a summary judgment motion by raising a new theory of liability in the opposing papers:

The report established that the fire marshal conducted an investigation at the subject premises and concluded that the fire in defendants’ building was caused by combustible clothing left in a dryer for too long, rather than any defect in the premises or dryer … . Although the fire marshal did not have an independent recollection of his investigation, his report was admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, and was sufficient to satisfy defendants’ prima facie burden, since it noted that he independently inspected the premises and concluded that the accident was not due to defendants’ negligence … .

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her expert failed to address the theories of liability raised in the complaint and bill of particulars and failed to rebut defendants’ showing. Instead, plaintiff’s expert raised a new theory, namely that plaintiff’s injuries from smoke inhalation were caused by the absence of a self-closing door in the laundry room where the fire occurred, which caused smoke to permeate into plaintiff’s apartment. A plaintiff cannot defeat a summary judgment motion by asserting a new theory of liability for the first time in opposition papers … . Mirdita v Musovic Realty Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 03284, First Dept 4-30-19

 

,

THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION REFERRED TO UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED RECORDS AND THEREFORE LACKED ANY PROBATIVE VALUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff failed to demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure proceedings:

Plaintiff cannot establish that the note was assigned to it by a written assignment prior to commencement of foreclosure proceedings. Therefore, it must “adequately prove[] that it did, indeed, have possession of the note prior to commencement of this action” … , and where an affiant’s knowledge is based on unidentified and unproduced records, “the affidavit lacks any probative value” and cannot be the basis for an award of summary judgment … . Since plaintiff has failed to establish that it had physical possession of the note prior to commencement of this action, we reverse the motion court’s award of summary judgment to plaintiff. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v Gould, 2019 NY Slip Op 03266, First Dept 4-30-19​

 

,

POLICE EFFECTIVELY SEIZED DEFENDANT BY BLOCKING DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WITH TWO POLICE CARS, BECAUSE THE SEIZURE TOOK PLACE IN THE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE SUSPICION A PARTICULAR PERSON WAS INVOLVED IN A CRIME THE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and suppressing the tangible evidence, determined the police effectively seized defendant by blocking in defendant’s vehicle with two police cars without sufficient cause:

The conviction arises from a police encounter during which an officer approached the parked vehicle in which defendant was a passenger and observed that defendant was in possession of a handgun. We agree with defendant that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the initial seizure of the vehicle, and thus Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress both the tangible property seized, i.e., the weapon, and statements defendant made to the police at the time of his arrest. Here, police officers effectively seized the vehicle in which defendant was riding when their two patrol cars entered the parking lot in such a manner as to prevent the vehicle from being driven away … . The police had, at most, a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot,” which permitted them to approach the vehicle and make a common-law inquiry of its occupants. They did not, however, have “reasonable suspicion that [a] particular individual was involved in a felony or misdemeanor” to justify the seizure that occurred here …, and thus the weapon and defendant’s statements should have been suppressed. People v Suttles, 2019 NY Slip Op 03158, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

, ,

FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, JURORS COULD NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE THEY COULD PUT ASIDE THEIR RESERVATIONS AND BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A NEW TRIAL AND BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER ISSUES NOT RULED UPON BY THE TRIAL COURT, THE TRIAL COURT WAS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER TWO EVIDENTIARY ISSUES, ONE RAISED BY THE PEOPLE, AND ONE RAISED BY THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because for cause challenges to two jurors were denied. Neither juror gave unequivocal assurances that she could be fair and impartial, in fact one juror expressly said she would continue to think defendant was involved based solely on his presence in the courtroom. In the interest of judicial economy, because there will be a new trial, the Fourth Department indicated the court erred in finding defendant’s cell phone was lawfully seized from defendant’s vehicle incident to arrest to protect evidence in defendant’s grabbable area from destruction or concealment. The Fourth Department noted it could not consider the People’s argument the cell phone was lawfully seized pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because Supreme Court didn’t rule on that issue. The Fourth Department directed Supreme Court to make a ruling. The Fourth Department further directed Supreme Court to rule on whether an unavailable witness’s hearsay statement should be admitted pursuant to defendant’s rights to put on a defense and due process. Defendant had raised that issue but Supreme Court did not rule on it. With respect to the for cause juror challenges, the court wrote:

“It is well settled that a prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the [prospective] juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial’ “… . Although CPL 270.20 (1) (b) “does not require any particular expurgatory oath or talismanic’ words . . . , [a prospective] juror[] must clearly express that any prior experiences or opinions that reveal the potential for bias will not prevent [him or her] from reaching an impartial verdict” … . People v Clark, 2019 NY Slip Op 03231, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PRIVATE CITIZEN WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT FOR THE POLICE WHEN SHE RECORDED DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION TO MURDER, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A 710.30 NOTICE BECAUSE THE STATEMENT WAS VOLUNTARILY MADE AND NOT SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION, TWO -JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the failure to provide a CPL 710.30 notice of a statement made by defendant to a private citizen was a mere irregularity, not reversible error, because the statement was not involuntarily made, and therefore was not subject to suppression. The two dissenters argued that it was possible the defendant was induced to make the statement by the promise of sexual relations with the private citizen. Because there was a colorable basis for suppression, the dissenters argued, the defendant was entitled to notice and a hearing. In the recorded statement the defendant admitted to committing murder and explained the details. The decision is extensive and addresses several other substantive issues: (1) Defendant was not entitled to Miranda warnings because he was not subjected to custodial interrogation in that he was incarcerated on another matter when he was questioned and no added constraints were imposed; (2) The prosecutor provided race-neutral explanations for challenges to jurors—one juror’s father and brother had criminal convictions—another juror acknowledged reading books by a writer with anti-police and anti-establishment views; (3) The testimony by a medical examiner who did not conduct the autopsy did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation; and (4) The defendant’s request for an accomplice jury instruction was properly denied because there was no question whether the witness participated in the offense. With respect to the statement recorded by a private citizen for which no 710.30 notice was provided, the court wrote:

… [W]e agree with our dissenting colleagues that the citizen in this case was acting as a police agent at the time she recorded the statements inasmuch as she was acting “at the instigation of the police . . . to further a police objective” … .

We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleagues, however, on the issue whether the failure to provide the CPL 710.30 notice warrants preclusion of those statements. We conclude that it does not. Where, as here, there is “no colorable basis for suppression of the statement, the failure to give notice [constitutes] a mere irregularity not warranting preclusion” … . In our view, there is no colorable basis for suppression of defendant’s statements to the private citizen. There is no dispute that defendant voluntarily went to the citizen’s home and that he was interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with her. During the entire conversation, wherein defendant admitted committing the homicide, the private citizen made no explicit or implicit promises that she would engage in sexual relations with defendant. Rather, it was defendant who offered to tell her anything she wanted to know after she expressed that she was afraid of him, and then provided her with all of the details concerning the homicide. We thus conclude that the private citizen did not make any statement or engage in any conduct that “create[d] a substantial risk that . . . defendant might falsely incriminate himself”… . ​People v Albert, 2019 NY Slip Op 03227, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS FOR PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST A CHILD AND RAPE AFFIRMED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE DISSENT, APPLYING A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, ARGUED THE EVIDENCE DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in an extensive, fact-specific decision, over a dissent, affirmed defendant’s predatory sexual assault against a child and rape first degree convictions. The child was four when the alleged incident occurred and 11 at the time of the third trial. There was a hung jury in the first trial and the conviction after the second trial was reversed based upon the judge’s handling of a jury note. The principal physical evidence was sperm found on the child’s underwear. No semen was found on the underwear or on the child. There was no injury to the child’s genitals. The defense theory was that the sperm was transferred to the child’s underwear during a wash. The People’s expert testified such a transfer was possible. The appeal came down to a weight of the evidence analysis. The dissent argued the proof did not rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the absence of semen, the lack of injury, the victim’s poor memory and implausible description of the rape, the victim’s affirmative response to the prosecutor’s mistaken question about a second rape (the prosecutor mistakenly thought the two counts of rape in the indictment alleged two separate incidents), and the fact that defendant had no criminal record and no other allegation of inappropriate sexual conduct had ever been made against him. People v Garrow, 2019 NY Slip Op 03238, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

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