You are here: / Evidence
,

THE BANK DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE AVERMENTS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WERE BASED UPON THE AFFIANT’S REVIEW OF BUSINESS RECORDS; BECAUSE THE RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined plaintiff bank did not prove defendant’s default because the relevant business records were not attached to the affidavit describing the default:

“Among other things, a plaintiff can establish a default by submission of an affidavit from a person having personal knowledge of the facts, or other evidence in admissible form” … . Here, the affidavit of Trey Cook, a document execution specialist for the plaintiff’s servicing agent, failed to provide proof of the defendant’s default in payment of the note in admissible form. Although Cook averred that he had personal knowledge of how the servicing agent’s business records were kept and maintained and that, based on his review of those business records, the defendant “failed to make the payment that was due for July 1, 2014 under the Loan Documents and . . . failed to make subsequent payments to bring the loan current,” the business records on which Cook relied were not annexed to his affidavit. Thus, Cook’s assertions regarding the defendant’s alleged default constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Tagor, 2025 NY Slip Op 03040, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: An affidavit which avers facts drawn from the affiant’s review of business records is inadmissible hearsay if the records are not attached.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT AND THE PETITIONER’S INJURIES, IT DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS THAT UNDERLIE THE LEGAL THEORIES OF LIABILITY; THEREFORE THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a nurse hired to care for M.C., an infant, was not entitled to leave to file a late notice of claim against the school district for injuries allegedly suffered when M.C. struck her in a stairway at M.C.’s elementary school. Although there was an incident report and a police report, the school district’s timely actual knowledge of the incident and the injuries did not demonstrate knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim:

… [T]he petition failed to establish that the District acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter. “Actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim means knowledge of the facts that underlie the legal theory or theories on which liability is predicated in the [proposed] notice of claim; the public corporation need not have specific notice of the theory or theories themselves” … . “[K]nowledge of the accident itself and the seriousness of the injury does not satisfy this enumerated factor where those facts do not also provide the public corporation with knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim” … .

Here, while an employee incident report, a police incident report, and the involvement of an employee of the District in the incident may have established the District’s actual knowledge of the incident, they did not provide the District with actual knowledge of all of the essential facts underlying the claim … . Among other things, although the District was presumably aware that M. C.’s individualized education program (hereinafter IEP) allegedly required him to have an aide with him at all times due to aggression, and that no such aide had been assigned to him at the time of the incident, neither the IEP nor the incident reports described the incident while making a connection between [petitioner’s] injuries and negligent conduct on the part of the District … . Matter of Cooke v Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 03062, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: One of the criteria for leave to file a late notice of claim against a school district is that the district have had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claim. Timely knowledge of the incident and injuries is not sufficient. The district must have had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the theory or theories of liability.

 

,

HERE MOTHER’S CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT CLAIMING SHE WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BUT RATHER FOUND THE PAPERS ON THE GROUND IN FRONT OF THE FRONT DOOR WAS CONCLUSORY AND INSUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE NO HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD AND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the conclusory affidavit by defendants’ mother, alleging she was not served with the summons and complaint but rather found the papers on the ground in front of her front door, was not sufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit demonstrating proper service upon a person identified as “aunt:”

… [T]he process server’s affidavits constituted prima facie evidence that the defendants were properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the defendants’ mother’s affidavit was insufficient to rebut the presumption arising from the process server’s affidavits because it was conclusory and not substantiated by specific facts … . The defendants’ mother’s conclusory averment that she did not receive service was insufficient to rebut the statement in the process server’s affidavits that an “AUNT” had accepted service. Furthermore, the defendants’ mother did not assert that there was no one else present at the premises who could have accepted service.

Therefore, because the defendants’ mother’s affidavit was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service, a hearing was not warranted … . … Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint … . Harvey v Usukumah, 2025 NY Slip Op 03050, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: Here defendants’ mother’s affidavit claiming she was not served with the summons and complaint but rather found the papers on the ground outside the front door was deemed insufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit. Therefore no hearing about the propriety of service should have been held and the motion to dismiss the complaint should have been denied.​

 

, ,

IF DEFENDANT DRIVER, COCUZZO, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT RANDALL AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, RANDALL WOULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE; NOT SO IF COCUZZO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; THE “EMPLOYER VS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” ISSUE MUST BE RESOLVED BY THE TRIER OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined whether defendant Randall Provisions, Inc. was vicariously liable for defendant Cocuzzo’ s traffic accident depended on a question of fact, i.e., whether Cocuzzo was an employee or an independent contractor. Therefore Randall’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

Randall submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the deposition testimony of Cucuzzo and the deposition testimony of Gregory L. Randall, its principal. Cucuzzo and Gregory both testified that Randall paid Cucuzzo in cash, issued him a 1099 tax form at the end of the year, and did not provide him with any fringe benefits, as well as that Cucuzzo used his own vehicle to travel his merchandising route. These facts all weigh in favor of the conclusion that Cucuzzo was an independent contractor … . However, Randall’s submissions also included evidence indicating the existence of an employer-employee relationship. For example, Cucuzzo testified that Gregory gave him three Pepsi-branded t-shirts to wear while working for Randall … , and that Randall provided him with a daily stipend to reimburse him for gas mileage on top of his regular pay … . Cucuzzo also testified that, when he first began working for Randall, he received approximately two days of training from a Randall worker as to the company’s “way of doing” the merchandising work … . According to Cucuzzo, he regularly checked in with a Randall delivery driver to coordinate their respective work obligations and to ensure that Cucuzzo only reported to a store after the driver had delivered products … . Although his work days fluctuated from week to week, Cucuzzo and Gregory both testified that Gregory would provide Cucuzzo with his work schedule in advance … , as well as determine the list of stores that Cucuzzo was required to visit … . Gaudreau v Cucuzzo, 2025 NY Slip Op 03046, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: Here there was evidence the driver involved in the accident was an employee and there was evidence he was an independent contractor. If the driver was an employee, his employer would be vicariously liable, not so if the driver was an independent contractor. The issue must be resolved by the trier of fact.

 

, ,

THE BANK’S UNILATERAL ATTEMPT TO REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IS PRECLUDED BY THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PROTECTION ACT (FAPA) WHICH APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO THIS CASE; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a letter from the bank in this foreclosure action purporting to revoke a prior acceleration of the debt did not stop the running of the six-year statute of limitations. The action was therefore time-barred. The Second Department noted that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), effective December 30, 2022, applies retroactively to this case. The FAPA essentially provides that once the debt is accelerated the six-year statute of limitations keeps running despite any attempt to “unilaterally waive, postpone, cancel, toll, revive or reset the accrual” of the foreclosure action:

Applying FAPA here, the revocation letter did not de-accelerate the mortgage debt nor did it “revive or reset” the statute of limitations … . Since the plaintiff commenced this action more than six years after the initial acceleration of the mortgage debt, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred (see CPLR 213[4] …). US Bank Trust, N.A. v Horowitz, 2025 NY Slip Op 03095, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: Here the bank attempted to revoke a prior acceleration of the debt by sending defendants a “revocation letter.” The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), which applies retroactively to this case, rendered the attempted revocation a nullity. Therefore the letter did not stop the running of the six-year statute of limitations and the foreclosure action was time-barred.​

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS STAIRCASE SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s deposition testimony adequately identified the causes of his staircase slip and fall and raised a question of fact about the defendant property owner’s constructive notice of the condition of the staircase. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

“In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner . . . who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence” … . “[A] defendant moving for summary judgment can [also] make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of the plaintiff’s fall without engaging in speculation” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his fall without resorting to speculation … . In support of her motion, the defendant submitted, among other things, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, wherein he testified that he could not see where he was stepping because of poor lighting conditions in the stairwell, and as he attempted to place his left foot on a step, either the handrail shook or his foot slipped on the carpet, and he felt himself going backward. As the plaintiff’s left foot was in the air, his right foot slipped backwards because the carpet was worn. As such, the plaintiff identified the cause of his fall as a combination of the lighting, the handrail, and the poor condition of the carpet. Therefore, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not know what had caused him to fall … . In addition, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that she did not have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition … . Fitzmorris v Alexander, 2025 NY Slip Op 03044, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: If a plaintiff identifies a combination of factors which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall, the plaintiff has not failed to identify the proximate cause of the fall. Here plaintiff alleged poor lighting and either the handrail shook or his foot slipped on the worn carpet. Those allegations were deemed to have sufficiently identified the proximate cause(s) of the fall and to have raised a question of fact about defendant property owner’s constructive notice of the condition of the staircase.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO COULD NOT SAY HE WOULD NOT HOLD DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY AGAINT HIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A POLICE OFFICER WHO SPENT ONLY 10 OR 15 MINUTES WITH THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT IN A VIDEO, DESPITE THE CHANGE IN DEFENDANT’S APPEARANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s for cause challenge to a prospective juror who said he would hold defendant’s failure to testify against him should have been granted. Because there will be a new trial, the Second Department noted that a police officer who had limited contact with the defendant should not have been allowed to identify the defendant in a video:

The prospective juror maintained that he was unable to “promise” that his decision would not be affected if the defendant did not testify at trial. Since the prospective juror made statements that cast doubt on his ability to render an impartial verdict under the proper legal standards and did not, upon further inquiry, provide unequivocal assurances that he would be able to render a verdict based solely upon the evidence adduced at trial, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s for-cause challenge … .

… [W]e note that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in allowing a police detective to identify the defendant as the individual depicted in a surveillance video. Generally, “‘lay witnesses must testify only to the facts,’ and not to their opinions and conclusions drawn from the facts,’ as it is the jury’s province ‘to draw the appropriate inferences arising from the facts'” … . In determining whether to permit this testimony, a court must consider “whether the witness has had sufficient contact with the defendant to achieve a level of familiarity that renders the lay opinion helpful” … . In making this assessment, courts may consider (1) the witness’s general level of familiarity with the defendant’s appearance, (2) whether the witness’s familiarity spanned an extended period of time and variety of circumstances, (3) whether the witness was familiar with the defendant’s appearance at the time the surveillance footage was taken, and (4) whether the witness was familiar with the defendant’s customary manner of dress or clothing (see id. at 648-649). Here, there was no basis for the court to conclude that the police detective was more likely than the jury to correctly determine whether the defendant was depicted in the surveillance video … . The police detective testified that he spent a total of 10 to 15 minutes with the defendant. While there was testimony that the defendant’s appearance had changed prior to the trial, through weight loss and cutting his hair, “the record is devoid of any other circumstances suggesting that the jury——which had ample opportunity to view [the] defendant——would be any less able than the detective to determine whether [the] defendant was, in fact, the individual depicted in the video” … . People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 03087, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: A challenge to a prospective juror who cannot state unequivocally he or she would not hold defendant’s failure to testify against the defendant must be granted.

Practice Point: A police officer who is allowed to identify the defendant in a video is offering an opinion, not facts. Here the officer had spent only 10 to 15 minutes with the defendant and therefore was not qualified to offer an opinion on the identity of the person depicted in the video.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING DAILY SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER, THE PLAINTIFF’S AND A FACULTY MEMBER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S PROPENSITY FOR ABUSE AND THE ABUSE ITSELF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment in this Child Victims Act case should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged daily sexual abuse by a teacher. The school district submitted plaintiff’s deposition transcript and a faculty member’s deposition transcript in support of the summary judgment motion. The plaintiff’s allegations of daily abuse and the faculty member’s testimony that students had informed him of the abuse and he believed other teachers were aware of the abuse raised questions of fact about negligent hiring and retention of the teacher and negligent supervision of the plaintiff:

In support of their motion, the defendants submitted … a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that over the course of the school year, while he was in the seventh grade, he was sexually abused by the teacher daily and that the teacher’s abusive propensities were common and open knowledge in the middle school’s community. The defendants also submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of a faculty member who was employed by the school district at the same time as the teacher, who testified that students had informed him that the teacher engaged in inappropriate conduct and that he believed other teachers were aware of said alleged conduct. Therefore, the defendants’ own submissions demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants had actual or constructive notice of the alleged abuse of the plaintiff and of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and as to whether the defendants’ supervision of the plaintiff and the teacher was negligent … . Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, the court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . T.F. v Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 03042, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: In Child Victims Act cases alleging frequent sexual abuse by a teacher, courts are increasingly willing to hold that the plaintiff’s allegations of frequent abuse alone are sufficient to raise a question of fact about constructive notice on the part of the school.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS GRAND LARCENY CASE WAS DETAINED BY STORE SECURITY GUARDS; DEFENSE COUNSEL FIRST LEARNED THE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE STORE’S SECURITY PERSONNEL ON THE EVE OF THE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WERE AGENTS OF THE POLICE; THEREFORE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO SUBPOENA THE STORE’S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new “state action” hearing, determined defense counsel’s request for an adjournment to subpoena information about the store security guards’ employment should have been granted. The issue is whether the store security guards who detained the defendant in this grand larceny case were licensed to exercise police powers or acted as agents of the police. Defense counsel learned the name of the store’s lead investigator at the time of defendant’s detention on the eve of the state action hearing. The First Department noted that defense counsel could not properly subpoena the employment information without knowing the identities of the people involved:

… [W]e find that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel a short adjournment. In denying the requested adjournment, the court found that defendant “could have done that [subpoena … records] a long time ago, maybe even when this appeal was being perfected.” On this appeal, the People make a similar argument that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the adjournment because defense counsel could have subpoenaed the materials during the pendency of this appeal. The problem with these arguments is that this Court had already recognized that, without information about the identity of the officers involved in defendant’s arrest, defense counsel was not in a position to meaningfully subpoena records … .

Contrary to the court’s suggestion, this is not the situation where defense counsel failed to exercise due diligence. In fact, as we held, without knowing the names of the store security guards involved in defendant’s detention, defendant was in no better position to subpoena the employer material than when he filed his initial motion. Thus, it was only upon learning the identity of one member of the security team that the defense could meaningfully begin to investigate whether the security guards were state actors. People v Sneed, 2025 NY Slip Op 03026, First Dept 5-20-25

Practice Point: If a defendant is detained by store security guards, the detention may implicate constitutional protections if the security guards are licensed to exercise police powers or are agents of the police. The defense, therefore, may be entitled to a so-called “state action” hearing. To subpoena the appropriate store employment records, defense counsel is entitled to the identities of the security guards involved in defendant’s detention.

 

, ,

GIVING THE CORRECT “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” JURY INSTRUCTION THREE TIMES WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER WHO ALLEGEDLY SHOT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF A POLICE OFFICER’S DISCIPLINARY RECORD (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) although the judge accurately instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence three times, the judge failed to acknowledge the erroneous instruction, requiring reversal; (2) the judge should have allowed cross-examination of a police officer about a civil case in which the officer was alleged to have shot the plaintiff after plaintiff was subdued; and (3) the judge should have granted defendant’s motion for an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record:

Notwithstanding that the court instructed the trial jury accurately and at length with regard to the presumption in its preliminary instructions, in another instruction at a break in the testimony of the first witness, and in its closing instructions, the court did not satisfy the requirement, clearly enunciated in People v Harrison (85 NY2d 891 [1995]), that “to obviate an erroneous instruction upon a material point, it must be withdrawn in such explicit terms as to preclude the inference that the jury might have been influenced by it” … . A withdrawal in explicit terms cannot be accomplished without acknowledging the erroneous instruction, identifying the error, and providing a correct instruction … .

… [T]he court improvidently exercised its discretion, under the standard set forth in People v Smith (27 NY3d 652 [2016]), in not permitting cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a civil suit, in which a testifying police officer in the present case was a defendant alleged to have shot the plaintiff in the leg in that case after he was subdued by police officers. The existence of the suit provided a “good faith basis for inquiring,” and the allegations of excessive force were “relevant to the credibility of the law enforcement witness” … . In light of the principle “that the right of cross-examination is implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation and helps assure the accuracy of the truth-determining process” … , the seriousness of the allegation that the officer accidentally shot a [*2]suspect in the leg was sufficient to allow inquiry into the facts underlying the lawsuit.

… [T]he court should have granted defendant’s motion pursuant to People v Gissendanner (48 NY2d 543 [1979]) to the extent of conducting an in camera review of the officer’s disciplinary record, rather than forbidding all cross-examination regarding the allegations in an underlying civil suit. … The defendant’s motion should be granted when the defendant “put[s] forth in good faith . . . some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the file will bear such fruit and that the quest for its contents is not merely a desperate grasping for straws” … . Here, defendant alleged that the officer inflicted pain on him by twisting his wrist when he was already subdued, and the defense learned of two lawsuits in which the officer was alleged to have engaged in similar conduct. People v Fishbein, 2025 NY Slip Op 02996, First Dept 5-15-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for (1) the procedure for correcting an erroneous jury instruction, (2) the criteria for allowing the cross-examination of a police officer about a civil suit in which it is alleged the officer shot the plaintiff, and (3) the criteria for granting a motion to conduct an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record.

 

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