You are here: / Evidence
, , ,

EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S STEPFATHER APOLOGIZED TO THE ROBBERY VICTIM FOR THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS AND THE TESTIMONY ABOUT AN ANONYMOUS INFORMANT’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE ENCOURAGED INFERENCE OF GUILT BASED ON FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, APPELLATE ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, reaching the appellate issues in the interest of justice, determined that improperly admitted evidence warranted a new trial, noting that the prosecutor also acted improperly. The identity of the defendant was a key issue in this robbery case. The victim (Fernandez) should not have been allowed to testify that the defendant’s stepfather told the victim he was sorry for what defendant had done and returned the victim’s keys. Also, the investigating detective should not have been allowed to testify that an anonymous informant had identified the defendant:

There was no showing that the defendant participated in or was in any way connected to his stepfather’s actions … .

… [T]he testimony of an investigating detective recounting a conversation with an anonymous informant, a nontestifying witness, violated the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution… . The informant reportedly was an eyewitness to the crime and identified the defendant by name. The testimony “went beyond the permissible bounds of provid[ing] background information as to how and why the police pursued [the] defendant” … . …

Upon retrial, we remind the People that, on summation, a prosecutor may not “improperly encourage[ ] inferences of guilt based on facts not in evidence” … . Here, there was no evidence to support the prosecutor’s assertion that Fernandez had identified the defendant as the robber “immediately” by recognizing a distinctive “dot” on the defendant’s face. People v Gonsalves, 2019 NY Slip Op 01792, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT WHEN APPROACHED BY POLICE IN PLAINCLOTHES AND DRIVING AN UNMARKED CAR DID NOT JUSTIFY PURSUIT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WEAPON DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over two separate full-fledged dissenting opinions, determined that the police did not have justification for pursuing defendant when he ran as the police (in plainclothes driving an unmarked car) approached. The police had a report of a shooting by a black man wearing a black jacket. Defendant was wearing a gray jacket and was walking out of an apartment complex with a black man wearing a black jacket. Defendant’s motion to suppress the weapon he discarded during the chase should have been granted:

“Flight alone, even if accompanied by equivocal circumstances that would justify a police request for information, does not establish reasonable suspicion of criminality and is insufficient to justify pursuit, although it may give rise to reasonable suspicion if combined with other specific circumstances indicating the suspect’s possible engagement in criminal activity” … . “Police pursuit of an individual ‘significantly impede[s]’ the person’s freedom of movement and thus must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” … . …

… [T]he radio report simply indicated a sole perpetrator with a vague description — black man in a black jacket. There was nothing at all about defendant that matched any aspect of the suspect in the radio report, except that he was black. Nor was defendant wearing a black jacket. He was wearing a gray jacket and was with a second individual, several minutes after the radio report of shots fired. The men did not appear to be fleeing the scene, but rather, were exiting an apartment complex. Thus, unlike the cases relied on by the People, defendant did not match any description, general or otherwise … . Further, there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that defendant knew Pengel and his colleagues were police officers… .

That defendant was with someone who matched an extremely vague, generic description of the suspect, which contained no information about the suspect’s height or weight, was not sufficiently indicative of criminal activity on defendant’s part … . People v Bilal, 2019 NY Slip Op 01673, First Dept 3-7-19

 

​

,

PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF’S SON WAS INJURED, ACCORDING TO EXPERT EVIDENCE, WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS, WAS PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND WAS NONHAZARDOUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this playground equipment injury case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s son was injured when his leg was caught in a gap between two platforms:

… [T]he defendants submitted, inter alia, an expert affidavit, which established, prima facie, that the playground apparatus was not in violation of any relevant statutes or safety guidelines, that it was maintained in a reasonably safe condition, that the platforms were nonhazardous, and that the gaps between the platforms did not violate any applicable guidelines or standards … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Valenzuela v Metro Motel, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01639, Second Dept 3-6-19

 

,

PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence of standing did not meet the business record exception to the hearsay rule:

Here, since Thrasher [plaintiff’s loan officer] did not allege that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures, a proper foundation for the admission of the records was not provided, rendering them inadmissible to establish that the subject note was possessed by or assigned to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action. Moreover, even if a proper foundation had been set forth in the Thrasher affidavit, Thrasher’s assertions as to the contents of the records is inadmissible hearsay to the extent that the records she purports to describe were not submitted with her affidavit. While a witness may read into the record from the contents of a document which has been admitted into evidence … , a witness’s description of a document not admitted into evidence is hearsay (seeCPLR 4518[a]…). Furthermore, although the plaintiff submitted an endorsed copy of the note in support of its motion for summary judgment, after having appended an unendorsed copy of the note to the complaint, the plaintiff failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the original note at the time the action was commenced … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v 22 S. Madison, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01635, Second Dept 3-6-19

 

,

POLICE OFFICER’S ALLEGED OBSERVATION OF A DRUG DEAL WAS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence should have been granted and the indictment dismissed in this drug possession case. The police officer’s (Borden’s) testimony that he observed the drug transaction, which took place inside a car, through his rearview mirror, was incredible as a matter of law:

… [W]e find that the People failed to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, as Borden’s testimony was incredible and patently tailored to meet constitutional objections. Borden’s claim that he observed the alleged transaction through his rearview mirror with sufficient clarity to see that the object passed between the occupants of the car was Suboxone strains credulity and defies common sense … . Rather, common experience dictates that the dashboard of the defendant’s vehicle would have obscured Borden’s view of a hand-to-hand transaction between the defendant and the front-seat passenger. Borden’s testimony that the transaction occurred at a height sufficient for “public view” lacked credibility and suggested that his testimony was tailored to meet constitutional objections … . Moreover, the difference in size between the eight-inch by two-inch object Borden claimed to have seen passed between the occupants of the vehicle, and the two-inch by one-inch object recovered … , casts significant doubt on Borden’s testimony that he recognized the object as Suboxone. Accordingly, exercising our independent power of factual review, we conclude that the defendant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence recovered incident to his arrest should have been granted. People v Maiwandi, 2019 NY Slip Op 01618, Second Dept 3-6-19

 

,

PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE RAPE KIT AND BLOOD AND SALIVA EVIDENCE RELATED TO A 1988 PROSECUTION HAD BEEN DESTROYED AND DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE VERDICT, MOTION FOR DNA TESTING AND MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for DNA testing and his motion to vacate his conviction were properly denied. Defendant had been convicted of sodomy in 1988. After a successful habeas corpus petition, a second trial was held and defendant was again convicted. After the habeas corpus petition had been filed, but before it was docketed, the NYPD destroyed the rape kit and blood and saliva samples. No DNA testing had been done on the evidence:

Any defendant, regardless of the date of conviction, may move for DNA testing on specified evidence. The court shall grant the application if it determines that had a DNA test been conducted on the evidence and had the results of that evidence been admitted at trial, “there exists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.30[1-a][a][1]). Defendant bears the burden of making the “reasonable probability” showing … . Where the People assert that the evidence to be tested has been destroyed or cannot be located, the statute provides that the people must make “a representation to that effect” and submit “information and documentary evidence in the possession of the people concerning the last known physical location of such specified evidence” (CPL 440.30[1-b][b]). It is the People’s burden to show that the evidence could no longer be located and was thus no longer available for testing … .

We find that the People met their burden. …

… .[W]e find that defendant has not carried his burden of establishing that, even had he been able to secure the original evidence and perform DNA testing on it, there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different … . People v Dorsey, 2019 NY Slip Op 01526, First Dept 3-5-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DIDN’T REACH THE LIABILITY ISSUE, THE MERITS WERE LITIGATED AND BRIEFED ALLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision traffic accident case, noting that the plaintiff no longer has to demonstrate freedom from comparative fault to warrant a judgment on liability. Supreme Court had not reached the liability issue and the Second Department did so because the merits were litigated and briefed:

… [T]he plaintiff testified at her deposition that her vehicle was stopped at a red light when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle. This testimony established, prima facie, that the defendant driver’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident … . Moreover, although the plaintiff also submitted a transcript of the defendant driver’s deposition testimony, that testimony does not present a triable issue of fact. The defendant driver testified that before the accident occurred, the light turned green, and the plaintiff began to slowly move forward. The defendant driver began to accelerate, then he saw the plaintiff’s brake lights go on. He testified that he “hit the brakes and hit her.” In essence, his testimony amounted to a claim that the plaintiff’s vehicle came to a sudden stop which, standing alone, was insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of the defendants’ vehicle … . Buchanan v Keller, 2019 NY Slip Op 01385, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

 

, ,

BANK’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE WHICH MET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE AND MAILING CRITERIA REQUIRED THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s evidence in this foreclosure action did not meet the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule and therefore the bank’s summary judgment motion should not have been granted in this foreclosure action. The court further held that defendant’s motion for summary judgment based upon the bank’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, an issue that can be raised at any time, should have been granted:

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records Wallace relied upon were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]). Wallace did not attest to personal knowledge of SLS’s record-keeping business practices and procedures  … . Wallace also failed to attest that the records were made in the regular course of SLS’s business and that it was the regular course of SLS’s business to make them, at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence, or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter (see CPLR 4518[a] …). Thus, Wallace failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records, and her assertions based on these records were inadmissible … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Weber, 2019 NY Slip Op 01383, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION THE MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH PROOF MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff mortgage company did not demonstrate standing with proof meeting the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Melissa Black, an employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, who alleged, based upon a review of business records maintained by the loan servicer, that the plaintiff had been “in continuous possession of the note and mortgage since June 26, 2007.” However, because Black did not attest that she was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records relied upon by Black were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a] … ). In any event, the submissions by the plaintiff of different copies of the note raise a triable issue of fact, inter alia, as to whether the note was assigned to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the action … . EMC Mtge. Corp. v Tinari, 2019 NY Slip Op 01392, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

, ,

PROOF OF MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT MET, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff bank did not present sufficient proof of compliance with the notice requirements in Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304:

The plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Sherry Benight, an officer of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (hereinafter SPS), stating that her review of records maintained by SPS revealed that a “[ninety-day pre-foreclosure notice] dated September 13, 2012, . . . was sent to Borrower(s) by certified and first class mail.” A copy of the notice to Fisher was annexed to Benight’s affidavit, which contained a bar code with a 20-digit number below it, but no language indicating that a mailing was done by first-class or certified mail, or even that a mailing was done by the U.S. Postal Service … . Further, Benight did not make the requisite showing that she was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Fisher, 2019 NY Slip Op 01444, Second Dept 2-27-19

Similar issues and result in US Bank N.A. v Rode, 2019 NY Slip Op 01446, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

 

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