You are here: / Evidence
,

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY FANNIE MAE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, FANNIE MAE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence submitted by the plaintiff (Fannie Mae) in this foreclosure action did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule and, therefore, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

In support of those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants and for an order of reference, Fannie Mae submitted affidavits of foreclosure specialists employed by Seterus, Inc., its loan servicer. The foreclosure specialists attested that they were personally familiar with the record-keeping practices and procedures of Seterus, Inc., but failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records concerning the defendants’ payment history and default. Accordingly, Fannie Mae failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon in the affidavits were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a] … ). Since Fannie Mae’s motion was based on evidence that was not in admissible form … , Fannie Mae failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants and for an order of reference should have been denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the defendants’ papers in opposition … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Marlin, 2019 NY Slip Op 00095, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO RECOMMENCE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER IT WAS DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING AND ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff bank did not demonstrate it had standing to bring this foreclosure action. Therefore plaintiff’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted. The court noted that Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiff an additional six months to commence another action (CPLR 205 (a))  after the first was dismissed as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c):

… [P]laintiff failed to demonstrate that it has standing as the assignee of the mortgage from MERS. By its express terms, the initial written assignment from MERS only assigns the mortgage, not the note, and no proof was submitted establishing that MERS was ever conferred with the requisite authority to assign the note… . Moreover, contrary to Supreme Court’s holding, this Court has held that merely attaching the note with a blank indorsement to the complaint is not sufficient for plaintiff to meet its prima facie burden on the issue of standing or to prove plaintiff’s possessory interest in the note; proof of actual possession is required … ….

Plaintiff similarly failed to establish its standing by demonstrating that it had physical possession of the note at the time of the commencement of the action. In support of its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted, among other things, a copy of its complaint, the mortgage, the unpaid note (indorsed in blank), the relevant assignments of the mortgage and proof of defendants’ default. Plaintiff also tendered the affidavit of the authorized officer for Caliber Home Loans, Inc., the mortgage loan servicing agent and attorney-in-fact for plaintiff … . The affidavit of the authorized officer indicates the source of her knowledge to be her “review of the electronic records of Caliber Home Loans, Inc.” regarding defendants’ delinquent account, which includes, among other things, “electronic images of the note and electronic records maintained by Caliber Home Loans, Inc.” Other than alleging that she reviewed these electronic records, the authorized officer’s affidavit fails to provide any indication that she actually examined the original note, nor did it provide any details with regard to whether plaintiff ever obtained possession thereof and, if so, how and when it came into its possession … . Moreover, the complaint is equivocal and alleges in the alternative that plaintiff is “the current owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note, or has been delegated the authority to institute a mortgage foreclosure action by the owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note.” Such language is insufficient to establish that plaintiff had physical possession of the note at the time it commenced this action … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Moomey-Stevens, 2019 NY Slip Op 00016, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF 37 COUNTS OF SEXUAL OFFENSES, THE TESTIMONY AT TRIAL RENDERED 26 COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that 26 of the 37 sexual offense counts on which defendant was convicted must be reversed because they were rendered duplicitous by the trial testimony:

An indictment count is duplicitous when it charges more than one crime that is completed by a discrete act in the same count … . “Even if a count is valid on its face, it is nonetheless duplicitous where the evidence presented to the grand jury or at trial ‘makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict'” … . Thus, when “the trial testimony provides evidence of repeated acts that cannot be individually related to specific counts in the indictment, the prohibition against duplicitousness has been violated”  … . …

For example, counts 1 and 2 of the indictment used identical language to charge defendant with predatory sexual assault against a child on the ground that he committed the crime of criminal sexual assault in the first degree against victim 1 during the summer of 2006 … . Victim 1 testified that, during the summer of 2006 when he was 12 years old, defendant put his mouth on victim 1’s penis “[a]t least two times.” Likewise, counts 5 and 6 charged defendant with criminal sexual act in the second degree consisting of oral sexual conduct with victim 1 during the summer of 2007, counts 7 and 8 charged defendant with the commission of the same crime during the summer of 2008, counts 9 through 12 charged defendant with the commission of two counts of criminal sexual act in the third degree in each of the summers of 2009 and 2010, and count 13 charged defendant with the commission of sexual abuse in the second degree during the summer of 2006. Victim 1 testified that the charged conduct occurred at least twice during each of the specified time periods. He provided no further specifics about the frequency or timing of any particular act, and the prosecutor did not seek to distinguish among them by, for example, drawing victim 1’s attention to the first incident in one of the specified time periods and then asking him to describe that particular event … .  Likewise, the jury was given no instructions that distinguished between the counts pertaining to any of the time periods in a way that would have permitted it to relate each of the counts to a specific act … . People v Madsen, 2019 NY Slip Op 00003, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

,

THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S TESTIMONY THAT DEFECTS IN THE HANDRAIL OR THE STAIR RISER HEIGHTS CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OVER $500,000 PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT WAS VACATED AND A NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated the plaintiff’s jury verdict (over $500,000) in this stairway slip and fall case and ordered a new trial, finding that plaintiff’s expert should not have been allowed to testify about defects in the handrail because the trial evidence did not allege the handrail was a proximate cause of the fall. The First Department further held, without explanation, that the riser heights should not have been charged as an independent theory of liability:

… [D]efendants’ argument that there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to charge the jury on theories that either riser heights or the handrail were a proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall, has merit… . Although plaintiff testified that it was her usual habit to hold a handrail while descending stairs, her testimony was equivocal on whether she held the handrail that day. Further, she testified that she did not attempt to reach for a handrail at the time of her fall, because the accident happened too fast. Nor did she provide any testimony connecting the handrail to her optical illusion theory. Thus, plaintiff’s expert should not have been allowed to testify that the handrail was a contributing cause of plaintiff’s fall, and the jury should not have been charged on the question whether the handrail was too short. Moreover, while the final step’s size may have helped contribute to plaintiff’s claim of optical illusion, the riser heights in the staircase should not have been charged as an independent theory of liability.

The trial court’s response to a jury note asking whether the building was “up to code” was incorrect in light of the prior summary judgment order. Rather than responding that there was no evidence that the code was either violated or complied with, the jury should have been informed that the building code was not applicable to the staircase. Landau v Balbona Rest. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00051, First Dept 1-3-19

EXPERT OPINION

,

THE OPINION EVIDENCE THAT CLAIMANT’S PRE-EXISTING HEART CONDITION WAS A HINDRANCE TO HER EMPLOYABILITY WAS INSUFFICIENT, THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER, THEREFORE, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the evidence did not support the finding that the claimant’s pre-existing conditions posed a hindrance to her employability. Therefore the carrier was not entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund:

Claimant, a licensed practical nurse, established a claim for a work-related injury to her right knee stemming from a September 3, 2004 accident that occurred while she was dispensing medication to patients. * * *

We find that the carrier failed to prove that claimant’s preexisting conditions hindered or were likely to hinder her employability. Although Moriarty, an orthopedist, did offer an opinion based upon a records review that claimant’s heart conditions could pose a hindrance to employability, the opinion was based upon generalities and speculation, and did not rationally support the conclusion that claimant’s present disability was “‘materially and substantially greater than what would have arisen from the [2004] work-related injury by itself'” … . Moriarty did not examine or interview claimant, and the record does not reflect that claimant was subject to any restrictions or that any of her preexisting conditions hindered her job performance or ability to work… . In addition, as noted in Moriarty’s addendum, claimant’s aortic insufficiency from a heart valve condition was controlled by medication, and “preexisting conditions that are controlled by medication have been found, without more, not to constitute a hindrance to employability” … . In view of the lack of evidence that claimant’s preexisting conditions hindered or were likely to hinder her employability, we find that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, it must be reversed … . Matter of Ricci v Maria Regina Residence, 2018 NY Slip Op 08980, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE IT TO GRANT FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY WHEN MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR, MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court did not have sufficient evidence before it to grant father’s petition for custody when mother did not appear:

While the decision to grant or deny a motion to vacate a default rests in the sound discretion of the court, “default orders are disfavored in cases involving the custody or support of children, and thus the rules with respect to vacating default judgments are not to be applied as rigorously” … .

Although the mother did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default in the change of custody case, she had a meritorious defense. The children have resided primarily with her, and insufficient evidence was submitted to make an informed change of circumstances determination (see Family Ct Act § 467[b][ii]) that serves the best interests of the children … .

Also, the court failed to sua sponte appoint an attorney for the children, which, based upon the insufficient evidence it had to make an informed best interests determination, would have been advisable … . Matter of Abel A. v Imanda M., 2018 NY Slip Op 09000, First Dept 12-27-18

 

, ,

THERE WAS NO PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENSE VERDICT FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER A SERIOUS INJURY WAS NECESSARILY BASED ON THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY, VERDICT WAS PROPERLY SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict in this traffic accident case was properly granted. Plaintiff had been granted summary judgment on liability and proceeded to trial on damages. Defendants’ expert, McGowan, purported to analyze the forces involved in the collision and opined that the impact could not have caused plaintiff’s injuries. The jury returned a verdict finding that plaintiff did not suffer a “serious injury:”

… [W]e agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages… . “An expert’s opinion must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness'”… . Here, a proper foundation was lacking for the admission of McGowan’s opinion … . Among other things, McGowan failed to calculate the force exerted by all four vehicles, the crash test he utilized to determine the delta-v differed in several significant respects from the instant accident, and he reviewed simulations in which the weight of the dummies was not similar to that of the plaintiff. Imran v R. Barany Monuments, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08921, Second Dept 12-26-18

, ,

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS A GUN FOUND IN A VEHICLE, THE COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL, THE SECOND DEPT DID NOT THEREFORE HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW THE ISSUE, MATTER SENT BACK SO SUPREME COURT CAN ARTICULATE ITS REASONING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department remitted the matter to Supreme Court for the basis of its ruling on a suppression motion:

This Court is statutorily limited to reviewing errors or defects that “may have adversely affected the appellant” (CPL 470.15[1]), and thus has no power “to review issues either decided in an appellant’s favor, or not ruled upon, by the trial court”… . The Court of Appeals has observed that, once the Appellate Division has rejected a trial court’s ruling on a particular issue, it may not proceed to consider other issues that might provide a basis for affirmance if they were not determined adversely to the appellant… .

Here, the defendant contends that the Supreme Court incorrectly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun, arguing that the inevitable discovery and search incident to a lawful arrest exceptions did not apply. The People contend, as they did before the Supreme Court, that the automobile exception applies. However, the court did not set forth the basis for its denial of the branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress the gun. Furthermore, on this record, we cannot determine the unarticulated predicate for the court’s evidentiary ruling …  Therefore, in order to avoid exceeding our statutory authority pursuant to CPL 470.15(1), we hold the appeal in abeyance and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun. People v Thomas, 2018 NY Slip Op 08962, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE REQUEST FOR A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION, THE COURT OF APPEALS CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION RULING IN PEOPLE V BOONE APPLIES RETROACTIVELY, HOWEVER THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined County Court should have given the cross-racial jury instruction, but deemed the error harmless:

The defendant correctly contends that the County Court erred in denying his request for a jury charge on cross-racial identification. In People v Boone (30 NY3d 521, 526), the Court of Appeals held that where, as here, “identification is an issue in a criminal case and the identifying witness and defendant appear to be of different races, upon request, a party is entitled to a charge on cross-racial identification.” Contrary to the People’s contention, Boone applies retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal … .

Nevertheless, the County Court’s failure to give a cross-racial identification charge constituted harmless error. At trial, the complainant identified the defendant as one of the three perpetrators who robbed him inside the office of the car wash. The evidence at trial established that shortly after the robbery, a police officer located the defendant and his accomplices, who matched the descriptions of the perpetrators, in a car. The defendant and his accomplices then led the police on a high-speed car chase and a subsequent chase on foot. When the defendant was apprehended following the foot chase, the police searched him for weapons, and the defendant stated, “they’re not on me, the guns are in the car.” The guns and proceeds of the robbery were found in the car from which the defendant and his accomplices fled. Additionally, money that the complainant had withdrawn from the bank earlier that day, which was bound with blue bands, was recovered from a jacket the defendant had discarded as he was running from the police. Under these circumstances, the error in failing to give the charge on cross-racial identification was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and no significant probability that the defendant would have been acquitted if not for the error … . People v Jordan, 2018 NY Slip Op 08956, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE FOUND BISHME’S DAUGHTER TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY ABUSED AND NEGLECTED BASED UPON BISHME’S ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF ANOTHER CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the derivative abuse and neglect petition against Bishme A. should not have been dismissed and found that Bishme A. had derivatively abused his own daughter based upon the abuse and neglect of another child, Jassir R.:

The Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) commenced two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. One proceeding was against Jazmin R. and Bishme A., alleging that they abused and neglected the child Jassir R. when that child was approximately 14 months of age. The other proceeding was against Bishme A., alleging that he derivatively abused his own daughter, Akeliah A., who was several weeks older than Jassir R. I… [A]fter a fact-finding hearing, the court … denied the petition alleging that Bishme A. derivatively abused Akeliah A., and dismissed that proceeding. …

The Family Court should have found that Bishme A. derivatively abused Akeliah A. In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, “proof of the abuse or neglect of one child shall be admissible evidence on the issue of the abuse or neglect of any other child” (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][i]). ACS established that Jassir R. suffered extensive inflicted injuries while in the care of Bishme A. Based on this evidence, ACS established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Bishme A. derivatively abused Akeliah A. Matter of Akeliah A. (Bishme A.), 2018 NY Slip Op 08925, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

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