You are here: / Evidence
,

A PROPER FOUNDATION WAS NOT PROVIDED FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SOME BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON BY THE REFEREE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to confirm the referee’s report in this foreclosure action should have been denied. A proper foundation had not been provided for the admissibility of some of the business records relied upon by the referee:

Generally, the report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record … . Here, the referee computed the amount due to the plaintiff based upon the affidavit of an employee of the plaintiff and certain business records. Although the affiant purported to have personal knowledge of the amounts due and owing on the loan, she averred that this was based upon her review of the plaintiff’s records. “[A] review of records maintained in the normal course of business does not vest an affiant with personal knowledge” … . The affiant also failed to establish a proper foundation for the admission of all of the business records relied upon (see CPLR 4518[a]). “A proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures” … . Here, the referee’s findings with respect to the total amount due on the note were premised upon a payment history beginning in 2009. The plaintiff, however, did not acquire the note until 2013. The plaintiff’s affiant failed to establish a proper foundation for the admission of the records from 2009 to 2013 … , and, therefore, the referee’s report was not substantially supported by the record. Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Lewis, 2025 NY Slip Op 02789, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Reversals in foreclosure proceedings often stem from the failure to provide a proper foundation for the admissibility of business records relied upon by the parties and/or the referee.​

 

, , , , ,

PETITIONER JUDGMENT-CREDITOR WAS ENTITLED TO THE TURNOVER OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRED TO A TRUST BY THE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT-DEBTORS, AS WELL AS THE CONTENTS OF RESPONDENTS’ SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to real property which was fraudulently transferred by respondents to a trust, as well as to the contents of respondents’ safety deposit box, to satisfy a judgment against respondents in the approximate amount of $338,000:

… [P]etitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52, seeking … the turnover of a safety deposit box maintained by the respondents Zakhar Brener and Ninel Krepkina and of certain residential real property owned by the respondent B and K Trust. * * *

… [P]etitioner established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action seeking relief pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 273 by submitting evidence that Brener was insolvent at the time of the conveyance of the property, which was made without fair consideration … .  * * *

… [P]etitioner established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action seeking relief pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 276. “Pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law former § 276, every conveyance made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors is fraudulent. The requisite intent required by this section need not be proven by direct evidence, but may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the allegedly fraudulent transfer” … . “In determining whether a conveyance was fraudulent, the courts consider the existence of certain common ‘badges of fraud,’ which include ‘a close relationship between the parties to the alleged fraudulent transaction; a questionable transfer not in the usual course of business; inadequacy of the consideration; the transferor’s knowledge of the creditor’s claim and the inability to pay it; and retention of control of the property by the transferor after the conveyance'” … . “A prime example of this type of fraud is where a debtor transfers his property to another while retaining the use thereof so as to continue . . . free from the claims of creditors” … . Here, the petitioner submitted, among other things, the Brener respondents’ answer, wherein they admitted that Brener continued to occupy and use the property with Krepkina. …

… [P]etitioner established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action to direct Chase Bank to turn over of the contents of the safe deposit box maintained by Brener and Krepkina by submitting a letter establishing that Brener and Krepkina jointly held a safe deposit box at one of Chase Bank’s branches in Brooklyn … . Matter of Schiffman v Affordable Shoes, Ltd., 2025 NY Slip Op 02786, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise description of a CPLR Article 52 turnover proceeding by a judgment creditor against judgment debtors based in part upon respondents’ fraudulent transfer of real property to avoid creditors (Debtor and Creditor Law sections 273 and 276).

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ASSERTIONS BY DEFENDANT’S EXPERT RE: PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action did not address all the proximate-cause issues railed by defendant’s expert, specifically the plaintiff’s failure to return for a follow-up visited after being treated in the emergency room at Elmhurst Hospital (the defendant). Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

At Elmhurst, the injured plaintiff’s forearm was X-rayed, and his wound was cleaned, sutured, and dressed. Later that same day, the injured plaintiff was discharged and instructed to return in two days for a follow-up appointment. The injured plaintiff did not return for the follow-up appointment but instead followed up with several physicians who were not associated with the defendant. The injured plaintiff allegedly required surgery later to repair several tendons in his forearm. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant negligently failed to properly diagnose and treat the injured plaintiff’s injuries during the initial emergency department visit at Elmhurst. * * *

… [T]he defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting … an affirmation of an expert physician, who opined that the physicians and employees of the defendant did not depart from the applicable standard of care and that any alleged departures were not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding proximate cause. The opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert regarding proximate cause failed to address specific assertions made by the defendant’s expert regarding, among other things, the implications of the injured plaintiff’s failure to return for a follow-up appointment as instructed … . Torres v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02806, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: In this med mal action, the defense expert’s affirmation submitted with defendant’s motion for summary judgment raised proximate-cause issues that were not addressed by plaintiffs’ expert. Therefore, defendant’s summary judgment motion should have been granted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFFS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant surgeon was not entitled to summary judgment in this medical malpractice action. The defendant’s expert affidavit did not address specific allegations of negligence asserted by plaintiffs:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish .. that Ashraf [defendant] did not depart from the applicable standard of care in treating the injured plaintiff or that any such departure did not proximately cause the injured plaintiff’s injuries. An expert affidavit of Ashraf submitted by the defendants in support of their motion failed to address specific allegations of negligence asserted by the plaintiffs, including whether Ashraf departed from the applicable standard of care in placing a 14-millimeter polyethylene component during the September 2016 surgery, as opposed to a smaller size, and whether such departure was a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries … . Sanchez v Ashraf, 2025 NY Slip Op 02803, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice action is dependent upon the defense expert’s affidavit. If the affidavit fails to address specific allegations of negligence made by the the plaintiff, summary judgment is not warranted. This is a fairly common ground for reversal.

 

 

, ,

THE PORT AUTHORITY DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH BY SUICIDE; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT CLIMBED OVER A FOUR-FOOT-TALL PEDESTRIAN RAILING AND JUMPED OFF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt-Burke, over a dissent, affirming summary judgment dismissing the complaint, determined the Port Authority was not liable for the plaintiff’s decedent’s death by suicide.  Plaintiff’s decedent climbed over the four-foot-tall pedestrian railing and jumped off the George Washington Bridge (GWB). Plaintiff alleged the Port Authority was negligent in failing to install suicide prevention barriers along the pedestrian walkways:

In this action to recover damages for wrongful death, plaintiff seeks to hold defendant the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey liable for the death of the decedent, who died by suicide after jumping off the George Washington Bridge (GWB). To fully capture the nature of this appeal, however, it is pertinent to first discuss that the issue here is not whether the Port Authority’s alleged negligence arose out of the performance of a governmental rather than a proprietary function; this Court has already determined that the Port Authority, as owner of the GWB, was acting in a proprietary capacity at the time this claim arose and therefore that the ordinary rules of negligence apply. In the appeal now presented to us, the Port Authority’s expert engineer opines that the engineering concerns associated with modifying the 100-year-old bridge justified the steps taken and the interim measures implemented, but also opines that reasonable engineering judgment delayed the implementation of the safety mechanism that plaintiff contends would have ultimately prevented the decedent’s death by suicide. We therefore consider whether, given the record presented, the Port Authority has established its prima facie burden under ordinary rules of negligence. For the reasons that follow, we find that the Port Authority established that the pedestrian walkways on the bridge were safe for the public at large, and the steps taken, including additional interim measures implemented prior to this incident to help individuals who, like the decedent, were suffering from suicidal ideations, were reasonable in light of the complexity and size of the bridge. Donaldson v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2025 NY Slip Op 02719, First Dept 5-6-25

 

, ,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER A RAISED MANHOLE COVER, EXPOSED WHEN THE ROAD SURFACE AROUND THE MANHOLE WAS MILLED IN PREPARATION FOR REPAVING, CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY THE CITY AND WHETHER THE CONDITION WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating the complaint, determined there were questions of fact whether the raised manhole cover constituted a dangerous condition, and whether the condition was open and obvious. Plaintiff was a passenger in a car which struck a raised manhole cover. In preparation for repaving, the existing road surface was milled or scarified such that the manhole covers extended above the surface of the road. Although asphalt was placed around the manhole (called ramping) so that the wheels on one side of a vehicle could pass over it, here the wheels on both sides of the manhole were on the milled surface and undercarriage of the car apparently struck it, causing the windshield to crack and the air bags to deploy:

[Defendant’s witness] could not say whether that ramping made it safe [for a vehicle to traverse directly over the manhole, with the wheels completely to the side of the entire width of the manhole’s ramping. It is this condition that plaintiff alleges was dangerous and defective, and the City adduced no evidence to refute that allegation. Accordingly, whether the City’s work — the ramping of the manhole — “immediately resulted in the existence of a dangerous condition,” thus rendering the City liable to plaintiff for her injuries, is a question of fact for the jury … . …

The City’s argument that the court erred in rejecting its argument sub silentio that it is nonetheless entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it on the ground that the condition was open and obvious is unavailing. Whether a dangerous or defective condition is open and obvious relates to the duty to warn of the hazard, not the duty to neutralize it … . Summary judgment may only be granted on an open-and-obvious defense “when the established facts compel that conclusion . . . on the basis of clear and undisputed evidence”; otherwise, the inquiry “is generally fact-specific and thus usually a jury question” … . Timmons v Praylow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02744, First Dept 5-6-25

Practice Point: The question whether a condition, here a raised manhole cover, is open and obvious applies to the duty to warn, not the duty to neutralize a hazard, and is rarely appropriate as a basis for summary judgment.

Practice Point: The written-notice requirement, which is often a condition precedent for a negligence action against a municipality stemming from a road-condition, does not apply where, as here, it is alleged the municipality created the dangerous condition (a raised manhole cover).

 

, , ,

THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT CONTINUED DESPITE HER REPEATED STATEMENTS THAT SHE HAD NOTHING ELSE TO SAY AND WAS DONE TALKING; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the defendant had unequivocally and repeated stated that she was “done talking” and had “nothing else to say” during her interrogation by investigators. The interrogators continued questioning her as if they hadn’t heard her assert her right to remain silent:

… [W]hile being interrogated at the police station, defendant stated to the investigators six separate times that she had “nothing else to . . . say” and that she was “done talking.” Even if defendant’s initial statement that she had nothing else to say may have been prompted by her “unwillingness to change [her] story” ,,, , she repeated her desire to stop talking even after the conversation shifted to another topic … . It is clear from a viewing of the interrogation video that defendant repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that she no longer wished to answer any more questions from the investigators. There was nothing equivocal about defendant’s invocations of the right to remain silent, which were not scrupulously honored by the investigators, who continued the interrogation as if they did not hear what defendant had said.

We thus conclude that the court erred in refusing to suppress any and all statements made by defendant on August 19, 2020 after 12:03 a.m. on the interrogation video. “Inasmuch as there is a reasonable possibility that the erroneous admission of defendant’s inculpatory statements contributed to the verdict, the error in refusing to suppress all of those statements cannot be considered harmless, and reversal is required” … . People v Lipton, 2025 NY Slip Op 02691, Fourth Dept 5-2-25

Practice Point: Any statements made in response to questioning after a defendant has told the interrogators he/she is “done talking” and has “nothing else to say” must be suppressed.

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER AND ATTEMPTED ASSAULT PURSUANT TO A PLEA AGREEMENT WITH A NEGOTIATED SENTENCE, THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE ILLEGAL; THERE WAS NO PROOF IN THE PLEA ALLOCUTION THAT THE DEFENDANT FIRED MORE THAN ONE BULLET (THERE WAS A SECOND SHOOTER) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the 25-year sentence for manslaughter and the 10-year sentence for attempted assault, which, pursuant to a plea agreement with a negotiated sentence, were imposed consecutively, must be served concurrently. Because the defendant pled guilty, the only relevant evidence is in the plea allocution. The majority concluded the record did not demonstrate that the defendant fired more than one bullet and therefore there was no proof the manslaughter and attempted assault charges stemmed from two separate acts (there was a second shooter):

“Consecutive sentences are appropriate only when either the elements of the crimes do not overlap or if the facts demonstrate that the defendant’s acts underlying the crimes are separate and distinct” … . The People bear the burden of establishing the legality of consecutive sentences and, when a defendant pleads guilty to a count in the indictment, may meet their burden by relying on the allegations in the accusatory instrument and any facts adduced at the plea allocution … . Where, as here, a defendant also pleads guilty to a lesser offense than that charged in the indictment, the People may only rely upon those facts and circumstances admitted during the plea allocution with respect to that count … . To this point, the facts necessary to support consecutive sentences may not be discerned from statements included in a presentence report … .

… [T]he People failed to meet their burden inasmuch as there are no facts alleged in the count of the indictment to which defendant pleaded guilty, or in the plea allocution relating to either count, that would establish that defendant’s “shooting a firearm,” which constituted manslaughter in the first degree by causing the death of the victim (count 1) and attempted assault in the first degree to a different victim (count 4), “arose from a separate and distinct pull of the trigger by defendant” … . People v Sabb, 2025 NY Slip Op 02624, Third Dept 5-1-25

Practice Point: To justify consecutive sentences the offenses must be the result of distinct acts. When conviction is by guilty plea, the plea allocution is the only admissible evidence of what happened (the pre-sentence report cannot be considered). Here, because the defendant did not admit to firing more than one bullet in the plea allocution, the sentences for manslaughter and attempted assault cannot be imposed consecutively. There was a cogent two-justice dissent.​

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE OFFERED NO EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE SLIPPERY CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined defendant did not not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the slippery substance because no proof the area was inspected or cleaned close in time to the fall was presented:

The defendant … failed to establish … that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged slippery substance on the floor. “To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the plaintiff’ … . Evidence of general cleaning practices are inadequate to show “lack of constructive notice in the absence of evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question” … . Here, the managing member of the defendant testified only that all staff had a general responsibility for the upkeep and cleanliness of the restaurant. Outside these general statements, the defendant provided no further information on when the specific area of the plaintiff’s fall had last been inspected or cleaned … . Rhoden v 515 Rest., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 02617, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: This case presents another instance of the failure to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the condition alleged to have caused plaintiff’s slip and fall. A lack of constructive notice is demonstrated by specific proof the area of the fall was cleaned or inspected close in time to the fall, not by proof of general cleaning practices.

 

, ,

“LAW OFFICE FAILURE” WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND D

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not present a reasonable excuse for failing to timely answer the complaint. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to accept the late answer should not have been granted:

A defendant seeking to compel the plaintiff to accept a late answer “must show both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense” … . “Generally, the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the court; however, reversal is warranted where the court improvidently exercises that discretion” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its defaults based upon law office failure. “[T]he movant must provide a detailed and credible explanation for the purported law office failure” … . “[A] conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse” … . Here, the defendant’s counsel asserted in a conclusory and undetailed manner that the initial deadline to serve an answer and the extension consented to by the plaintiff’s former counsel were missed due to an office backlog and miscalendaring, and that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment was “misplaced” in the office … . Raphael v City of Peekskill, 2025 NY Slip Op 02616, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Here allegations of “law office failure” did not warrant compelling the plaintiff to accept a late answer.

 

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