You are here: / Evidence
, ,

DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO A WARRANT APPLICATION FOR THE COLLECTION OF DNA EVIDENCE, YOUTUBE VIDEO NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that defendant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard in opposition to a warrant application for the collection of DNA evidence. Defendant was incarcerated and represented on another matter at the time of the warrant application. The First Department also noted that a Youtube video admitted into evidence was not properly authenticated:

In general, search warrant applications are made ex parte … . However, as explained in Matter of Abe A. (56 NY2d 288 [1982]), special rules apply to evidence to be taken from a suspect’s body, such as blood or DNA samples.

The hearing court excluded defense counsel based on its understanding that the discussion of notice in Abe A. applied only to the first “discrete level” of Fourth Amendment analysis identified in that case, involving “the seizure of the person necessary to bring him into contact with government agents,” and not the second level, involving “the subsequent search and seizure for the evidence” (id. at 295 [internal quotation marks omitted]). …

Nothing in the Court’s opinion suggests a basis for applying the “elementary tenet of due process” described by the [Abe A.] Court only to the first part of an application for an order to physically detain a person and then make a corporeal search. … Accordingly, defendant is entitled to suppression of the DNA evidence obtained as a result of the warrant issued by the hearing court, and a new trial … .

… [A]t trial the People failed to adequately authenticate an incriminating YouTube video under the standards set forth in People v Price (29 NY3d 472 [2017]), which was decided after defendant’s trial. The authentication testimony was essentially limited to testimony that the video shown in court was the same as the one posted on YouTube and another website, and that defendant appears in the video. Accordingly, there was no authentication under any of the methods discussed in Price. People v Goldman, 2019 NY Slip Op 02976, First Dept 4-23-19

 

, , , , ,

VALID EVIDENTIARY ISSUES WERE NOTICED BY APPELLATE COUNSEL BUT WERE NOT ADDRESSED AT TRIAL, THE STATE’S VERDICT IN THIS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, FALSE ARREST AND UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT ACTION AFFIRMED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, noting the validity of questions raised about the evidence that claimant sold the drugs, affirmed the verdict in favor of the state in this malicious prosecution, false arrest and unlawful imprisonment action. The evidentiary issues were noticed and raised by appellate counsel, but were not raised in the Court of Claims:

If taken at face value, this evidence would validate claimant’s testimony that he did not sell drugs to the informant and that defendant should have known as much. Critically important, however, is the fact that this timing discrepancy was never addressed at claimant’s criminal trial or the subject bench trial before the Court of Claims, and appears only to have been discerned by claimant’s counsel in his appellate brief. Defendant points out in its brief that it was unable to verify when the audio recording began because it did not have the original compact disc. The discrepancy between the commencement of the audio recording and the taking of the photographs is a matter of minutes at best. Missing from this record is any testimony expressly validating the timing as to when the audio recording began. Had this discrepancy been called to the attention of the Court of Claims, corresponding testimony could have been entertained … . As such, on this record, we decline to disturb the credibility determination made by the Court of Claims. Jenkins v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 02932, Third Dept 4-18-19

 

,

DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY IN THE GRAND JURY IDENTIFYING THE PERSON DEPICTED IN VIDEOTAPES AS THE DEFENDANT WAS ADMISSIBLE, COURT OFFERED NO OPINION WHETHER THE TESTIMONY WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a police officer’s testimony before the grand jury identifying the defendant in two videotapes was admissible. The court expressed no opinion whether the identification testimony would have usurped a jury’s role at trial:

The court erroneously dismissed an indictment charging defendant with crimes committed in two incidents, both recorded in videotapes presented to the grand jury, on the ground that a police officer who witnessed neither incident, but knew defendant from the area, identified him in each videotape. This testimony was not impermissible and it did not render the grand jury proceedings defective. The detective testified from his personal knowledge. Moreover, unlike trial jurors who can normally observe a defendant in court, grand jurors do not have that means of making a comparison between a videotape and a defendant’s appearance. In so holding, we express no opinion on the admissibility of a similar identification at trial. The “exceptional remedy of dismissal” … was not warranted. People v McKinney, 2019 NY Slip Op 02950, First Dept 4-18-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; EVIDENCE OFFERED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE OPPOSING PARTY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate it had complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. The court noted that evidence submitted in reply was properly considered because the opposing party had an opportunity to respond:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304. RPAPL 1304(1) provides that at least 90 days before a lender, an assignee, or a mortgage loan servicer commences an action to foreclose the mortgage on a home loan as defined in RPAPL 1304, such lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer must give notice to the borrower. RPAPL 1304(1) sets forth the requirements for the content of such notice and RPAPL 1304(2) further provides that such notice must be sent “by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail” to the last known address of the borrower. “[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” … .

Here, even considering the affidavit of Victoria Bressner submitted by the plaintiff for the first time in opposition to the defendant’s cross motion, the plaintiff failed to establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. Bressner did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing and did not make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures to establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Moreover, the record indicates that the notices were not mailed by the plaintiff. LNV Corp. v Sofer, 2019 NY Slip Op 02860, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

,

SNOWBOARDER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY CAUSED BY A CREVICE THAT HAD FORMED IN THE AREA WHERE SNOWBOARDERS USED A MOUND OF SNOW TO “CATCH AIR,” THE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE CREVICE FORMED NATURALLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant ski area was entitled to summary judgment in this snowboarding injury case. A mound of snow was used by snowboarders to “catch air.” Plaintiff was injured when he used the mound to “catch air” and landed in a five and a half foot crevice:

“[B]y engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” (… see General Obligations Law §§ 18-101, 18-106) . … A skier or snowboarder generally “assumes the inherent risk of personal injury caused by ruts, bumps or variations in the conditions of the . . . terrain” … . …

The defendant demonstrated, through the deposition testimony of its employees and the affidavit of its expert, that the crevice was likely caused by a combination of changing temperatures, natural wet springs in the area, and water draining from the snow whale. Underground springs and surface run-off are common on mountains and can undermine the integrity of the snowpack, resulting in voids, holes, crevices, and sinkholes. The defendant demonstrated that it did not create the crevice and that the crevice was the natural consequence of variations in surface and subsurface snow conditions (see General Obligations Law § 18-101). We conclude that the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the infant plaintiff assumed the risk of injury that could be caused by the crevice, and that the defendant did not do anything that unreasonably increased the risk … . Festa v Apex Capital, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02853, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

,

FRESHLY PAINTED AND SEALED FLOOR WILL NOT SUPPORT A SLIP AND FALL CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF THE DEFENDANTS HAD ACTUAL, CONSTRUCTIVE OR IMPUTED KNOWLEDGE THE PAINT AND SEALANT COULD RENDER THE FLOOR DANGEROUSLY SLIPPERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the allegation that a freshly painted floor was slippery was not enough to support a slip and fall case. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted:

The plaintiff Stephanie Faiella (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) slipped and fell on a recently painted walkway at her place of employment. The walkway was painted several days prior to her accident. … The walkway was first painted with an epoxy-based paint and then covered with a clear sealant. …

A defendant may not be held liable for the application of “wax, polish, or paint to a floor . . . unless the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed knowledge” that the product could render the floor dangerously slippery … . Faiella v Oradell Constr. Co., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02851, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

, ,

THE PROOF REQUIRED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FOR BOTH PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS, IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, ON WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE PROVISIONS, EXPLAINED; PRIOR DECISIONS HOLDING THAT A DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE WAS SUFFICIENT SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Iannacci, reversing Supreme Court, fleshed out the proof required for summary judgment, for both plaintiffs and defendants, with respect to compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL). The court noted that prior decisions holding that a defendant’s denial of receipt of notice was enough should no longer be followed:

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Although Crampton [assistant vice president of Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC] stated in her affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and regular first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, the plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents to prove that the mailing actually happened. There is no copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notice was sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute. Further, while Crampton attested that she was in receipt of the prior loan servicer’s records, that she had personal knowledge of the business practices for mailing of notices by Wilmington, and that the 90-day notice was sent in compliance with RPAPL 1304, she did not attest to knowledge of the mailing practices of Bank of America, the entity that allegedly sent the notices to the defendant. * * *

Even in the face of a plaintiff’s failure to establish, prima facie, that a notice was properly mailed on a motion for summary judgment on the complaint, this Court has held that a defendant still has to meet its burden, on a cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, of establishing that the condition precedent was not fulfilled … . Here, the defendant provided no particulars supporting her claim that Bank of America never mailed the RPAPL 1304 notice to her last known address. The defendant only stated that she never received the notice. The defendant did not confirm that she still lived at the address shown on the notice on the date it was purportedly mailed, that she had been receiving other mail at that address, and that she was never contacted by the United States Post Office about mail for which she was required to sign. We hold that a simple denial of receipt, without more, is insufficient to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with the requirements of RPAPL 1304. To the extent that our prior decisions are to the contrary, they should no longer be followed. Citibank, N.A. v Conti-Scheurer, 2019 NY Slip Op 02846, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

,

TENANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK BY ITS EFFORTS TO REMOVE SNOW AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AND MANAGER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, 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 the tenant, the landowner and the property manager did not submit sufficient evidence to warrant summary judgment in their favor in this sidewalk slip and fall case. The tenant (PCM) did not demonstrate that it did not exacerbate the danger by its snow removal and the property owner (2248) and the property manager (Solil) did not demonstrate they did not have constructive notice of the condition. [Defendants moving for summary judgment must address every theory of liability in their papers or the motion will be denied without the need to consider the opposing papers]:

PCM failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it undertook snow and ice removal efforts on the date of the accident to clear the area of the sidewalk where Pilar allegedly slipped and fell, or whether any snow and ice removal efforts undertaken by it created or exacerbated the icy condition that allegedly caused Pilar to fall … . …

2248, as owner of the premises abutting the sidewalk where Pilar allegedly slipped and fell, and Solil, its managing agent, failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the alleged icy condition. Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code imposes a nondelegable duty on 2248 to maintain the sidewalk abutting the premises, where Pilar allegedly fell … . In a premises liability case, a defendant real property owner or a party in possession or control of real property who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the allegedly dangerous or defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence … . Here, neither 2248 nor Solil established when the subject portion of the sidewalk was last inspected relative to when Pilar slipped and fell … . Accordingly, 2248 and Solil failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not have constructive notice of the condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff decedent’s fall … . Branciforte v 2248 Thirty First St., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02845, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

, ,

UNSIGNED DEPOSITIONS WERE ADMISSIBLE AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, although affirming the denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case on other grounds, noted that the depositions were admissible and evidence submitted in reply should have been considered:

Although the plaintiff’s deposition transcript, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, was unsigned, it was nonetheless admissible as the plaintiff raised no objection to its submission or accuracy and, in fact, requested that the Supreme Court “incorporate” his transcript into his opposition … . Regarding the deposition transcript of the decedent’s niece, which the defendants also submitted in support of their motion, the defendants demonstrated that they had submitted the unsigned transcript to the decedent’s niece for review, but that she failed to sign and return it within 60 days. Thus, the niece’s deposition transcript could have been used by the defendants as fully as though signed (see CPLR 3116[a] …). Furthermore, even though the evidence demonstrating the defendants’ compliance with CPLR 3116(a) was submitted by the defendants in reply, the court should have considered it, because it was in direct response to allegations raised for the first time in the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . The unsigned deposition transcript of the defendants’ property manager was admissible under CPLR 3116(a) since it was submitted by the defendants themselves and thus adopted as accurate … . Baptiste v Ditmas Park, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02844, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

,

DEFENDANT STORE DEMONSTRATED IT TOOK ADEQUATE MEASURES TO MOP UP RAIN WATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant store (7-Eleven) demonstrated it took adequate steps to mop up rain water in this slip and fall case. The store’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted:

It is undisputed that it was raining heavily on the day of the accident, and that there was a mat just inside the front entrance to the store. Said testified at her deposition that store employees were instructed to dry-mop water from the floor every 15 minutes on days it rained. At his deposition, one of Said’s employees testified that he mopped water as soon as he observed it. Moreover, the evidence submitted in support of the defendants’ motion demonstrated that the employee dry-mopped the area of the floor where the injured plaintiff allegedly fell approximately 15 to 25 minutes before the accident occurred. Said and her employees were not obligated to provide a constant remedy to the problem of water being tracked into the store in rainy weather … . Further, the defendants demonstrated that the condition was not present for a sufficient period of time for the defendants to have discovered and remedied it, and therefore, there is no basis for an inference that they had constructive notice … . Radosta v Schechter, 2019 NY Slip Op 02916, Second Dept 4-17-19

 

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