You are here: / Evidence
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof demonstrating it provided the notice required by RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting his own affidavit attesting that he had not received any notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304 … . In opposition, the plaintiff submitted only a copy of the required notice, but failed to submit any evidence that the notice was mailed in the manner required by the statute. Specifically, the plaintiff did not submit “an affidavit of service, . . . proof of mailing by the post office, evincing that it properly served the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304 [by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to his last known address]” … , or “proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … . Thus, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it strictly complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304, notwithstanding the label on the notice stating “Certified Article Number” and “Senders Record” and listing a 20-digit number on the top of the letter … . Thus, since the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the condition precedent of proper service of RPAPL 1304 notice upon him … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Heitner, 2018 NY Slip Op 07090, Second Dept 10-24-18

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, NOTICE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF IT HAD NOTIFIED DEFENDANT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff did not submit admissible proof that defendant was in default. The evidence did not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court also held that a nonparty’s motion to intervene was properly denied as untimely and the Judiciary Law 489 affirmative defense was properly struck. Judiciary Law 489 prohibits buying another’s debt for the purpose of bringing a court action, but debts exceeding $500,000 are exempt. The debts purchased here exceeded $500,000:

The determination to deny Fulton Holdings’ motion for leave to intervene in the action was a provident exercise of discretion. “Intervention under CPLR 1012 and 1013 requires a timely motion” … . Here, Fulton Holdings’ motion was not timely, as it was not made until approximately 14 months after Fulton Holdings had notice that the foreclosure action was pending … . …

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence of default in admissible form. To evince the mortgagor’s default, the plaintiff submitted the affidavits of Igor Fleyshmakher, the plaintiff’s managing member, and Frank Quintana, the president of 179 Court Street Holding Corp. (hereinafter 179 Court), a prior holder of the mortgage. Fleyshmakher and Quintana both attested to the date of the last payment allegedly received on the mortgage. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility, under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, of any records relied upon by Fleyshmakher and Quintana (see CPLR 4518[a]…). Neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana laid a foundation for, or even identified, the records upon which they relied. Moreover, neither the plaintiff nor 179 Court acquired its interest in the mortgage until after the alleged default date. Thus, neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana could have established the loan’s payment history up to and including the date of default by relying on their respective employers’ records. Neither Fleyshmakher nor Quintana asserted that they consulted or relied on the records of 179 Court’s predecessor-in-interest. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the mortgagor’s default … . Fulton Holding Group, LLC v Lindoff, 2018 NY Slip Op 07096, Second Dept 10-24-18

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION, FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4518 (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1012, 1013 (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (JUDICIARY LAW 489, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIARY 489 FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurance  policy was properly authenticated and the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for the property damage at issue and dismissed the complaint:

The insurance policy submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficiently authenticated by the sworn affidavit of defendant’s president, who stated that, based upon his review of defendant’s files, defendant’s proffer was a “full and complete copy” of the insurance policy issued to plaintiffs … .

… [W]e find that the terms of the policy conclusively refute plaintiffs’ claim that defendant is obligated to cover the structural damage caused to their barn by Calhoun’s operation of their tractor and hay baler. By its unambiguous terms, the policy insured plaintiffs only against direct physical loss caused to the barn by 11 specifically delineated perils. Accepting the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint as true and affording them the benefit of every possible favorable inference… , the alleged cause of the structural damage here — the tractor and hay baler “br[ea]k[ing] through the barn floor” — does not fall under one of the covered perils. The section of the policy cited by plaintiffs as providing coverage is inapplicable, as that section applies solely to liability insurance coverage arising out of third-party claims made against plaintiffs. Accordingly, as the insurance policy conclusively disposes of plaintiffs’ claim, defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) should have been granted and the complaint dismissed … . Calhoun v Midrox Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 07024, Third Dept 10-18-18

INSURANCE LAW (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION STUDENT VIOLATED THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, EVIDENTIARY STANDARD DEFINED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the college’s determination that petitioner-student violated  the code of student conduct was supported by substantial evidence:

“We emphasize that [t]he substantial evidence standard is a minimal standard” … , and “demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable”… . Stated differently, “[r]ationality is what is reviewed under the substantial evidence rule” …; substantial evidence is “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” . Where substantial evidence exists, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, even if the court would have decided the matter differently … .

“[O]ften there is substantial evidence on both sides of an issue disputed before an administrative agency” … . Where substantial evidence exists to support a decision being reviewed by the courts, the determination must be sustained, “irrespective of whether a similar quantum of evidence is available to support other varying conclusions”… . Moreover, hearsay is admissible as competent evidence in an administrative proceeding, and if sufficiently relevant and probative may constitute substantial evidence even if contradicted by live testimony on credibility grounds … . …

Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the hearsay evidence proffered at the administrative hearing, along with petitioner’s testimony, provides substantial evidence in support of the finding that he violated respondents’ code of conduct. The hearing board also could have reasonably interpreted some of petitioner’s conceded behavior as consciousness of guilt and concluded that his version of the events was not credible. Ultimately, it was the province of the hearing board to resolve any conflicts in the evidence and make credibility determinations. The Appellate Division improperly engaged in a re-weighing of the evidence when it substituted its own factual findings for those of respondents … . Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam, 2018 NY Slip Op 06964, CtApp 10-18-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION STUDENT VIOLATED THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, EVIDENTIARY STANDARD DEFINED (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION STUDENT VIOLATED THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, EVIDENTIARY STANDARD DEFINED (CT APP))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW  (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION STUDENT VIOLATED THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, EVIDENTIARY STANDARD DEFINED (CT APP))/COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION STUDENT VIOLATED THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, EVIDENTIARY STANDARD DEFINED (CT APP))/SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION STUDENT VIOLATED THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, EVIDENTIARY STANDARD DEFINED (CT APP))

,

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s request to relocate should have been granted:

We find that Family Court’s determination denying the mother’s relocation request and granting the parties joint legal custody is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. If not permitted to relocate, the mother’s only potential resource — besides public assistance — would be the father. Given the father’s significant criminal history — which includes domestic violence against the mother — this is not a situation we can countenance. Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the father is willing or able to assist the mother or the child in any way. The undisputed evidence was that the father’s financial support and parenting time was limited, sporadic and offered at his whim. Indisputably, the mother has been the child’s primary caretaker, the father provided almost no financial support and his very limited relationship with the child existed only through the mother’s efforts. Moreover, given the father’s history and evidence of domestic violence, we do not believe that joint legal custody is in the child’s best interests … . We note that, although not dispositive, the trial attorney for the child did not oppose the mother’s petition or her relocation request … .

We are mindful that our holding results in the child residing a significant distance from the father. The record indicates that the mother has consistently made the effort to remain in contact with the father, to send pictures and to initiate telephone calls and visits. We discern no basis upon which to conclude that she will not continue to do so. As the child grows, such contact will become more important and have a greater impact on the father’s ability to establish and maintain a relationship with the child. Accordingly, we remit this matter to Family Court to establish an appropriate schedule for telephone calls and parenting time with the father. Matter of Fisher v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 07014, Third Dept 10-18-18

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/RELOCATE (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, RELOCATE, (MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

,

MOTHER WAS NOT GIVEN THE CHANCE TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATIONS FORMING THE BASIS OF FAMILY COURT’S FINDING THAT MOTHER VIOLATED A VISITATION ORDER, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter, determined that mother never got the chance to respond to allegations which were the basis for granting father’s violation petition. Father alleged mother denied the father parenting time in violation of the temporary order of custody and visitation:

We agree with the mother that she was not given adequate notice of the allegation forming the basis of Family Court’s determination. In granting the father’s violation petition, Family Court found that the mother violated the June 2015 order by denying the father parenting time on January 22, 2017. Any denial of visitation on this specific date, however, was never alleged by the father in either his violation petition or his emergency application. Rather, this claim was raised for the first time when the parties appeared before Family Court on January 23, 2017. Moreover, Family Court did not entertain any proof with respect to the actual allegations in the father’s pleadings. In this regard, when the mother’s counsel inquired as to the purpose of the January 23, 2017 hearing, Family Court responded that it was to address specifically what transpired on January 22, 2017. Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that the father moved to amend his pleadings to add an allegation relating to the January 22, 2017 incident … or moved to conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at the hearing after the parties testified … . Matter of Pike v Bigelow, 2018 NY Slip Op 07006, Third Dept 10-18-18

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER WAS NOT GIVEN THE CHANCE TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATIONS FORMING THE BASIS OF FAMILY COURT’S FINDING THAT MOTHER VIOLATED A VISITATION ORDER, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER WAS NOT GIVEN THE CHANCE TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATIONS FORMING THE BASIS OF FAMILY COURT’S FINDING THAT MOTHER VIOLATED A VISITATION ORDER, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND WHETHER VISITATION WOULD BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS, FAMILY COURT HAD MADE FINDINGS BASED UPON PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT).

The Second Department held that a hearing was necessary to determine whether the maternal grandparents had standing to seek visitation and whether such visitation would be in the child’s best interests. Family Court, based on prior proceedings that were not part of the record, had found that the maternal grandparents had standing but visitation would not be in the best interests of the child:

A grandparent may establish a statutory right to visitation where “circumstances show that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene” … . To determine whether visitation is appropriate, a court must first decide whether the grandparent has standing to seek visitation before deciding whether visitation is in the child’s best interests … . Standing is established where the grandparent demonstrates that there is “a sufficient existing relationship with the[] grandchild . . . [or] a sufficient effort to establish one, so that the court perceives it as one deserving the court’s intervention”… . The sufficiency of the grandparent’s efforts in this regard “must always be measured against what [he or she] could reasonably have done under the circumstances” … . If standing is established, the court’s best interests determination “requires evaluation of a variety of factors, including the nature and extent of the existing relationship between the grandparent and child, the basis and reasonableness of the parent’s objections, the grandparent’s nurturing skills and attitude toward the parent[], the attorney for the child’s assessment and the child’s wishes” … . Matter of Ferguson v Weaver, 2018 NY Slip Op 07005, Third Dept 10-18-18

FAMILY LAW (VISITATION, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND WHETHER VISITATION WOULD BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS, FAMILY COURT HAD MADE FINDINGS BASED UPON PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, VISITATION, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND WHETHER VISITATION WOULD BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS, FAMILY COURT HAD MADE FINDINGS BASED UPON PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, VISITATION,  FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND WHETHER VISITATION WOULD BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS, FAMILY COURT HAD MADE FINDINGS BASED UPON PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT))/VISITATION (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND WHETHER VISITATION WOULD BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS, FAMILY COURT HAD MADE FINDINGS BASED UPON PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT))

,

MATTER REMITTED FOR FINDINGS CONCERNING WHETHER NEW YORK IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE OR CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS, CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN A MISSISSIPPI COURT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing and remitting the matter to make a record, determined that Family Court properly communicated with the Mississippi court in which mother had also commenced a pending custody proceeding but did not make a sufficient record in finding that Mississippi court retained jurisdiction of the custody:

The Mississippi court’s statements during the conference confirm that a child custody proceeding was still pending in that state and had been commenced prior to the mother’s Family Court proceeding, as those terms are defined by the UCCJEA [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act] … . Because the custody portion of the divorce action was still pending in Mississippi when the mother filed her custody modification petition in Family Court, the applicable provision of the UCCJEA is Domestic Relations Law § 76-e, entitled “[s]imultaneous proceedings.” Pursuant to that statute, a New York court may not exercise jurisdiction if, at the time the New York proceeding is commenced, a custody proceeding concerning the same child has been commenced in another state having jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, unless a court in the other state terminates or stays that proceeding because a New York court constitutes a more convenient forum under Domestic Relations Law § 76-f … . Procedurally, if a New York court determines that a custody proceeding has been commenced in another court in accordance with the UCCJEA, the New York court must stay its proceeding, communicate with the other court and, if the other court does not determine that New York is the more appropriate forum, dismiss the proceeding (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-e [2]). …

Although Family Court stated in its order that the Mississippi court “has retained jurisdiction,” that does not sufficiently answer the jurisdictional question under the UCCJEA. The Mississippi court, as the court where the first of two simultaneous child custody proceedings was filed, had to determine whether New York would be a more appropriate or convenient forum … . Matter of Hiles v Hiles, 2018 NY Slip Op 07004, Third Dept 10-18-18

FAMILY LAW (MATTER REMITTED FOR FINDINGS CONCERNING WHETHER NEW YORK IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE OR CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS, CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN A MISSISSIPPI COURT (THIRD DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, MATTER REMITTED FOR FINDINGS CONCERNING WHETHER NEW YORK IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE OR CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS, CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN A MISSISSIPPI COURT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR FINDINGS CONCERNING WHETHER NEW YORK IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE OR CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS, CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN A MISSISSIPPI COURT (THIRD DEPT))/UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA) MATTER REMITTED FOR FINDINGS CONCERNING WHETHER NEW YORK IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE OR CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS, CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN A MISSISSIPPI COURT (THIRD DEPT))

,

FATHER REBUTTED THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE CHILD’S MEDICAL CONDITION WAS THE RESULT OF NEGLECT AND ABUSE, NEGLECT AND ABUSE FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the respondent father had rebutted the presumption that the child’s medical condition was caused by abuse with medical evidence. Because the neglect and abuse petition relied entirely on the statutory presumption, the neglect and abuse findings were not supported:

Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (ii) provides that petitioner may establish “a prima facie case of child abuse or neglect . . . through evidence that the child sustained an injury that would ordinarily not occur absent an act or omission of the respondent, and that the respondent was the caretaker of the child at the time that the injury occurred” … . Contrary to respondent’s contention, petitioner did so here. It was undisputed that respondent was alone with the child when she stopped breathing, and the consulting pediatrician testified to her involvement in the child’s case and the reasons that she became convinced that recent, nonaccidental trauma was the only explanation for the child’s condition.

This prima facie case did not guarantee a finding of abuse or neglect, but “establish[ed] a rebuttable presumption of parental culpability which the court may or may not accept based upon all the evidence in the record”… . Petitioner must still prove abuse or neglect by a preponderance of the evidence and, importantly, proof of “a reasonable explanation for the child’s injuries” will rebut the presumption of culpability … . As such, before relying upon the presumption set forth by Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (ii), “the court should consider such factors as the strength of the prima facie case and the credibility of the witnesses testifying in support of it, the nature of the injury, the age of the child, relevant medical or scientific evidence and the reasonableness of the caretaker’s explanation in light of all the circumstances” … . Matter of Liana HH. (Christopher HH.), 2018 NY Slip Op 07001, Third Dept 10-18-18

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, ABUSE, FATHER REBUTTED THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE CHILD’S MEDICAL CONDITION WAS THE RESULT OF NEGLECT AND ABUSE, NEGLECT AND ABUSE FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY  LAW, FATHER REBUTTED THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE CHILD’S MEDICAL CONDITION WAS THE RESULT OF NEGLECT AND ABUSE, NEGLECT AND ABUSE FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/ABUSE (FAMILY  LAW, FATHER REBUTTED THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE CHILD’S MEDICAL CONDITION WAS THE RESULT OF NEGLECT AND ABUSE, NEGLECT AND ABUSE FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, ABUSE, FATHER REBUTTED THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE CHILD’S MEDICAL CONDITION WAS THE RESULT OF NEGLECT AND ABUSE, NEGLECT AND ABUSE FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action:

Where, as here, the note has been endorsed in blank, the purported holder of the note must establish its standing by demonstrating that the original note was physically delivered to it prior to the commencement of the action (see UCC 3-202[1]; 3-204[2]…). The plaintiff attempted to establish its standing through the affidavit of Jonathan Manko, an officer of Bank of America, N.A., the purported servicing agent for the plaintiff. Manko averred that he reviewed all of the documents attached to his affidavit and “authenticate[d] them as coming directly from the loan file at issue herein and kept in the ordinary course of business.” Manko averred that this action was commenced on December 30, 2010, and at that time, the plaintiff was in possession of the original note and mortgage. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the records Manko relied upon were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]) because Manko, an officer of Bank of America, N.A., did not attest that he was personally familiar with the plaintiff’s record-keeping practices and procedures … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Selig, 2018 NY Slip Op 06874, Second Dept 10-17-18

FORECLOSURE (BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE, BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))

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