You are here: / Evidence
, ,

INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE 90 DAY NOTICE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the proof of compliance with the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 90 day notice mailing requirements was insufficient:

Proof of the requisite mailing is established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, 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 … .

Here, in moving for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service or other proof of mailing by the post office establishing that it properly served [defendant] pursuant to RPAPL 1304. The unsubstantiated and conclusory statement of a vice president of the plaintiff that a 90-day pre-foreclosure notice “was forwarded by regular and certified mail” to [defendant] “in full compliance with all requirements of RPAPL § 1304” was insufficient to establish that the notice was actually mailed to [defendant] by first-class and certified mail … . Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Mandrin, 2018 NY Slip Op 02826, Second Dept 4-25-18

​FORECLOSURE (INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE 90 DAY NOTICE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE 90 DAY NOTICE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, 90 DAY NOTICE,  INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE 90 DAY NOTICE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

WILLFULNESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF CIVIL CONTEMPT, MOTHER’S MOTION TO FIND FATHER IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATIONS OF ORDERS CONCERNING CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s motion to find father in civil contempt for violation of orders concerning contact with the children should have been granted. The court need not find the violations were willful:

To prevail on a motion to hold a party in civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753(A)(3), the movant must establish by clear and convincing evidence (1) that a lawful order of the court was in effect, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, (2) the appearance, with reasonable certainty, that the order was disobeyed, (3) that the party to be held in contempt had knowledge of the court’s order, and (4) prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation … . Prejudice is shown where the party’s actions “were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party” … . In order for contempt sanctions to be imposed pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753(A), “willfulness” need not be shown … . Once the movant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to refute that showing, or to offer evidence of a defense such as an inability to comply with the order … .

Here, the hearing record established that the father violated unequivocal mandates of the Family Court, of which he was aware, by removing the children from school and vacationing with them for a one-week period in 2015 without timely notice to the mother, failing to facilitate daily phone contact between the mother and the children during that period, and failing to complete the required parenting training. The record further demonstrates that the mother was prejudiced by those actions. Contrary to the determination of the court, a finding of willfulness was not required to establish the father’s civil contempt. Matter of Mendoza-Pautrat v Razdan, 2018 NY Slip Op 02790, Second Dept 4-25-18

​FAMILY LAW (CIVIL CONTEMPT, WILLFULNESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF CIVIL CONTEMPT, MOTHER’S MOTION TO FIND FATHER IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATIONS OF ORDERS CONCERNING CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL CONTEMPT (FAMILY LAW, WILLFULNESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF CIVIL CONTEMPT, MOTHER’S MOTION TO FIND FATHER IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATIONS OF ORDERS CONCERNING CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL CONTEMPT, FAMILY LAW,  WILLFULNESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF CIVIL CONTEMPT, MOTHER’S MOTION TO FIND FATHER IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATIONS OF ORDERS CONCERNING CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT MOVED ITS OFFICE AND FAILED TO INFORM THE SECRETARY OF STATE (AND THEREFORE DID NOT RECEIVE THE SUMMONS) WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW IT TO DEFEND AN ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 317, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion to defend an action pursuant to CPLR 317 should not have been granted. The affidavit alleging defendant moved its office and failed to notify the secretary of state of the move (and therefore did not receive the summons) was deemed insufficient:

CPLR 317 provides that a person served with a summons, other than by personal delivery to him or her, who does not appear, may be allowed to defend the action within one year after he or she obtains knowledge of entry of the judgment upon a finding of the court that he or she did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a potentially meritorious defense … . “The mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint is not sufficient to establish lack of actual notice of the action in time to defend for the purpose of CPLR 317” … . Here, the defendant Grand Slam Ventures, LLC (hereinafter Grand Slam), failed to establish that it did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend the action. The affidavit of Grand Slam’s managing member averring that Grand Slam moved its office to an unspecified address in 2010, five years before the action was commenced, and failed to update its address on file with the Secretary of State, was not sufficiently detailed or substantiated to establish lack of actual notice of the action … . Moran v Grand Slam Ventures, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02776, Second Dept 4-25-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (SERVICE OF PROCESS, AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT MOVED ITS OFFICE AND FAILED TO INFORM THE SECRETARY OF STATE (AND THEREFORE DID NOT RECEIVE THE SUMMONS) WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW IT TO DEFEND AN ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 317, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS (CPLR 317, AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT MOVED ITS OFFICE AND FAILED TO INFORM THE SECRETARY OF STATE (AND THEREFORE DID NOT RECEIVE THE SUMMONS) WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW IT TO DEFEND AN ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 317, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 317 (SERVICE OF PROCESS, AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT MOVED ITS OFFICE AND FAILED TO INFORM THE SECRETARY OF STATE (AND THEREFORE DID NOT RECEIVE THE SUMMONS) WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW IT TO DEFEND AN ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 317, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SERVICE OF PROCESS, CPLR 317, AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT MOVED ITS OFFICE AND FAILED TO INFORM THE SECRETARY OF STATE (AND THEREFORE DID NOT RECEIVE THE SUMMONS) WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW IT TO DEFEND AN ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 317, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A CONSENT TO CHANGE ATTORNEY DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DENIAL OF A MOTION BROUGHT BY THE NEW ATTORNEY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE PROCESS SERVER WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE HIS LOG BOOK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the failure to file a consent to change attorney form was not a reason to deny the motion brought by new counsel, and the motion to vacate plaintiff’s default should have been granted because the process server was not able to produce his log book:

CPLR 321(b)(1) provides that an attorney of record may be changed by filing a consent to change attorney signed by the retiring attorney and the party. Notice must be given to adverse parties. In this case, it appears that at the time the defendant’s motion for leave to renew and reargue was made, no consent to change attorney had been filed. A technical failure to comply with CPLR 321(b), however, does not render the acts of the new attorney a nullity … . In this case, the plaintiff claims no prejudice, and the consent to change attorneys was filed while the motion was still pending … . Thus, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the belated compliance with CPLR 321(b) was not a basis to deny the defendant’s motion … .

At a hearing on the validity of service of process, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence … . The plaintiff failed to meet that burden. Where a process server has no independent recollection of events, a process server’s logbook may be admitted in evidence as a business record … . Here, however, the logbook was not produced in court or introduced in evidence. Thus, there was no evidence—other than the process server’s description of a business record not before the court, which the process server claimed he was unable to locate—to support the claim that service occurred at 7:05 p.m., when the person who allegedly received the papers was present to receive them. Sperry Assoc. Fed. Credit Union v John, 2018 NY Slip Op 02823, Second Dept 4-25-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONSENT TO CHANGE ATTORNEY, FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A CONSENT TO CHANGE ATTORNEY DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DENIAL OF A MOTION BROUGHT BY THE NEW ATTORNEY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE PROCESS SERVER WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE HIS LOG BOOK (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS  (CONSENT TO CHANGE ATTORNEY, FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A CONSENT TO CHANGE ATTORNEY DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DENIAL OF A MOTION BROUGHT BY THE NEW ATTORNEY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE PROCESS SERVER WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE HIS LOG BOOK (SECOND DEPT))/CONSENT TO CHANGE ATTORNEY (FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A CONSENT TO CHANGE ATTORNEY DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DENIAL OF A MOTION BROUGHT BY THE NEW ATTORNEY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE PROCESS SERVER WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE HIS LOG BOOK (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (VACATE DEFAULT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE PROCESS SERVER WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE HIS LOG BOOK (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS (VACATE DEFAULT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE PROCESS SERVER WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE HIS LOG BOOK (SECOND DEPT))/LOG BOOK (SERVICE OF PROCESS, VACATE DEFAULT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE PROCESS SERVER WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE HIS LOG BOOK (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

BANK’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE CAPTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE NOTE TO A NEW PLAINTIFF, AND NO PROCEDURAL STEPS TO REMOVE A DECEASED DEFENDANT FROM THE ACTION WERE TAKEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to change the caption in this foreclosure action to substitute and new bank plaintiff (FNMA) and eliminate one of the defendants who had died should not have been granted. The motion papers did not demonstrate with admissible evidence that the note had been assigned to the new plaintiff and did not take any of the required steps to remove the deceased defendant (George Bredehorn) from the action:

Although the plaintiff submitted evidence that the mortgage was assigned to FNMA, there was no evidence in admissible form of an assignment of the note or a transfer of possession of the note to FNMA. The only evidence offered by the plaintiff that the note had in fact been transferred to FNMA was the statement in the plaintiff’s attorney’s affirmation that “based on telephonic conversations,” the attorney had been advised that FNMA was the holder of the note as of February 1, 2014. This statement is inadmissible hearsay … .

Further, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to omit George Bredehorn from the caption. The plaintiff did not establish that George Bredehorn died intestate, move to substitute a representative for George Bredehorn’s estate as a defendant, move to discontinue the action insofar as asserted against him, or represent that it would not seek a deficiency judgment against his estate. In light of the plaintiff’s failure to take any one of those actions, the action against George Bredehorn was not extinguished … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Bredehorn, 2018 NY Slip Op 02595, Second Dept 4-18-18

​FORECLOSURE (BANK’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE CAPTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE NOTE TO A NEW PLAINTIFF, AND NO PROCEDURAL STEPS TO REMOVE A DECEASED DEFENDANT FROM THE ACTION WERE TAKEN (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (FORECLOSURE, BANK’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE CAPTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE NOTE TO A NEW PLAINTIFF, AND NO PROCEDURAL STEPS TO REMOVE A DECEASED DEFENDANT FROM THE ACTION WERE TAKEN (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, CHANGE CAPTION, BANK’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE CAPTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE NOTE TO A NEW PLAINTIFF, AND NO PROCEDURAL STEPS TO REMOVE A DECEASED DEFENDANT FROM THE ACTION WERE TAKEN (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, CHANGE CAPTION, BANK’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE CAPTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE NOTE TO A NEW PLAINTIFF, AND NO PROCEDURAL STEPS TO REMOVE A DECEASED DEFENDANT FROM THE ACTION WERE TAKEN (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE, CHANGE CAPTION, BANK’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE CAPTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE NOTE TO A NEW PLAINTIFF, AND NO PROCEDURAL STEPS TO REMOVE A DECEASED DEFENDANT FROM THE ACTION WERE TAKEN (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 1015  (FORECLOSURE, CHANGE CAPTION, BANK’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE CAPTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE NOTE TO A NEW PLAINTIFF, AND NO PROCEDURAL STEPS TO REMOVE A DECEASED DEFENDANT FROM THE ACTION WERE TAKEN (SECOND DEPT))

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF BANK HAD POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF CONTRADICTED THE DATE OF POSSESSION DESCRIBED IN PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether plaintiff had standing to bring the foreclosure action. i.e., whether it had possession of the note at the time the action was brought:

Here, the plaintiff produced the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of [defendant’s] default. However, the plaintiff failed, prima facie, to establish its standing. 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… . The plaintiff attempted to establish its standing through the affidavit of Chelsie Hall, a document execution specialist … . Based on her review of the plaintiff’s business records, Hall averred, in relevant part, that “[the] [p]laintiff acquired the original [n]ote on July 25, 2005.” However, the additional documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment showed that [defendant] continued to deal with the originating lender … until at least 2012.  Green Tree Servicing, LLC v Vitaliti, 2018 NY Slip Op 02601, Second Dept 4-18-18

​FORECLOSURE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF BANK HAD POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF CONTRADICTED THE DATE OF POSSESSION DESCRIBED IN PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF BANK HAD POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF CONTRADICTED THE DATE OF POSSESSION DESCRIBED IN PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, STANDING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF BANK HAD POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF CONTRADICTED THE DATE OF POSSESSION DESCRIBED IN PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged, exhaustive opinion by Justice Miller (too detailed to be fairly summarized here), determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction for a 1991 murder was properly granted (requiring a new trial). The early 90’s trial lasted one day. One of the police investigators has since been implicated in facilitating false identification testimony. The finger and palm print evidence did not match the defendant or his co-defendant. The blood evidence didn’t match. Crucial blood evidence was never tested and may have been lost. The identification evidence, the only evidence upon which the conviction could be based, was problematic. With respect to the criteria for newly discovered evidence in this context, the court wrote:

… [A] motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence should only be granted if the court finds, as a factual matter, that the movant has demonstrated that “[1] [n]ew evidence has been discovered since the entry of a judgment . . . [2] which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and [3] which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.10[1][g]).

The remaining three criteria should be used to evaluate the ultimate issue of whether the new evidence would “create a probability” of a more favorable verdict… . In assessing the probable impact of the new evidence, the court should consider whether and to what extent the new evidence is (1) material to the pertinent issues in the case, (2) cumulative to evidence that was already presented to the jury, and (3) merely impeaching or contradicting the evidence presented at trial … . People v Hargrove, 2018 NY Slip Op 02649, Second Dept 4-18-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that although plaintiff did not demonstrate spoliation of evidence warranting striking the answer, the plaintiff was entitled to an order of preclusion regarding any requested documents which defendants claimed did not exist. Plaintiff was shot by an intruder in his apartment building and had demanded any documents concerning the doors, locks and security measures in force at the building:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to impose a sanction upon the defendants for spoliation of evidence. The plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of establishing that spoliation occurred as there was no evidence submitted that the requested documents ever actually existed … . The plaintiff also did not establish that the absence of any such documents deprived him of his ability to prove his claim … . …

… [U]nder the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have exercised its discretion to grant the plaintiff the alternative relief of an order of preclusion. An order of preclusion may be entered where the offending party’s lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious … . “The willful and contumacious character of a party’s conduct may be inferred from the party’s repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, and the absence of any reasonable excuse for those failures, or a failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time” … . Here, the defendants failed to produce relevant documents that were directed to be produced by the preliminary conference order. That failure led to two motions by the plaintiff to compel compliance, only to have the defendants assert that the building had been sold shortly after the preliminary conference order had been issued and that all documents had been transferred to the new owner. The new owner then denied having any of the requested documents. The defendants offer no excuse for their conduct. The defendants’ dilatory discovery conduct cannot be condoned, and it would be manifestly unfair to the plaintiff for the defendants to attempt to offer any of the subject documents at trial, should the documents be located. Watson v 518 Pa. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02666, Second Dept 4-18-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE, DISCOVERY, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/DISCOVERY (NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/PRECLUSION (NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EVIDENCE, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, DISCOVERY, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

13-YEAR-OLD APPELLANT’S CONFESSION MADE WITHOUT MOTHER PRESENT WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE INTERROGATOR’S HAVING APPELLANT WRITE A LETTER PURPORTEDLY TO APOLOGIZE TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY, STATEMENTS BY THE VICTIM IN MEDICAL RECORDS WERE ADMISSIBLE TO CORROBORATE THE CONFESSION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, affirmed the juvenile delinquent adjudication finding that appellant committed offenses which, if he were an adult, would constitute criminal sexual act, sexual abuse, sexual misconduct and endangering the welfare of a child. It was alleged that appellant, who was 13, put his penis in the anus and mouth of L.F., who was nine. The majority concluded the fact that the appellant’s mother left the room during the police interrogation (at appellant’s request) and the investigator’s having the appellant write a “letter of apology” to the victim during the interrogation did not render the appellant’s confession involuntary. The majority further held that the statements in the medical records made by L.F. during a physical exam were relevant to treatment and therefore admissible to corroborate the confession:

While a parent may choose not to be present when a child is being interviewed, “the police should always ensure that the parent is aware of the right of access to his or her child during questioning,” and if asked to leave, “the parent should be made aware that he or she is not required to leave” … .

To be sure, the presence of a parent is important, as a parent may help a child understand Miranda warnings “so that the child can consciously and voluntarily choose whether to waive or to exercise his constitutional rights to remain silent, to have an attorney present at his questioning, and to have an attorney provided for him without charge if he is indigent” … . A parent present at questioning also is able to “monitor the interrogation lest the police engage in coercive tactics” … .

However, a child does not have an absolute right to the presence of a parent during interrogation, and “it does not follow as a matter of law that a child’s confession obtained in the absence of a parent is not voluntary”  … . * * *

… [A]ppellant’s confession is corroborated by the medical records, which were properly admitted into evidence by Family Court. … Hospital records are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule when they reflect “acts, occurrences or events that relate to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment or are otherwise helpful to an understanding of the medical or surgical aspects” of the patient’s hospitalization … . Matter of Luis P., 2018 NY Slip Op 02564, First Dept 4-12-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, EVIDENCE, 13-YEAR-OLD APPELLANT’S CONFESSION MADE WITHOUT MOTHER PRESENT WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE INTERROGATOR’S HAVING APPELLANT WRITE A LETTER PURPORTEDLY TO APOLOGIZE TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY, STATEMENTS BY THE VICTIM IN MEDICAL RECORDS WERE ADMISSIBLE TO CORROBORATE THE CONFESSION (FIRST DEPT))/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (EVIDENCE, 13-YEAR-OLD APPELLANT’S CONFESSION MADE WITHOUT MOTHER PRESENT WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE INTERROGATOR’S HAVING APPELLANT WRITE A LETTER PURPORTEDLY TO APOLOGIZE TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY, STATEMENTS BY THE VICTIM IN MEDICAL RECORDS WERE ADMISSIBLE TO CORROBORATE THE CONFESSION (FIRST DEPT))/CONFESSIONS  (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, 13-YEAR-OLD APPELLANT’S CONFESSION MADE WITHOUT MOTHER PRESENT WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE INTERROGATOR’S HAVING APPELLANT WRITE A LETTER PURPORTEDLY TO APOLOGIZE TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY, STATEMENTS BY THE VICTIM IN MEDICAL RECORDS WERE ADMISSIBLE TO CORROBORATE THE CONFESSION (FIRST DEPT))/FAMILY LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, EVIDENCE, 13-YEAR-OLD APPELLANT’S CONFESSION MADE WITHOUT MOTHER PRESENT WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE INTERROGATOR’S HAVING APPELLANT WRITE A LETTER PURPORTEDLY TO APOLOGIZE TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY, STATEMENTS BY THE VICTIM IN MEDICAL RECORDS WERE ADMISSIBLE TO CORROBORATE THE CONFESSION (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, HOSPITAL RECORDS, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, 13-YEAR-OLD APPELLANT’S CONFESSION MADE WITHOUT MOTHER PRESENT WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE INTERROGATOR’S HAVING APPELLANT WRITE A LETTER PURPORTEDLY TO APOLOGIZE TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY, STATEMENTS BY THE VICTIM IN MEDICAL RECORDS WERE ADMISSIBLE TO CORROBORATE THE CONFESSION (FIRST DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS (HOSPITAL RECORDS, CRIMINAL LAW, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, 13-YEAR-OLD APPELLANT’S CONFESSION MADE WITHOUT MOTHER PRESENT WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE INTERROGATOR’S HAVING APPELLANT WRITE A LETTER PURPORTEDLY TO APOLOGIZE TO THE VICTIM DID NOT RENDER THE CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY, STATEMENTS BY THE VICTIM IN MEDICAL RECORDS WERE ADMISSIBLE TO CORROBORATE THE CONFESSION (FIRST DEPT))

,

REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly denied a DNA-related Frye hearing based on a Frye hearing held in another case, even though that case is on appeal. The hearing was requested concerning a computer program (TrueAllele) which calculates the probability a defendant’s DNA is in a mixture that could not otherwise be definitively tied to the defendant. The original code for the computer program, called the source code, could have been requested by the defendant for a pre-trial analysis by a defense expert. The defense never requested the source code but attempted to have the TrueAllele expert provide the source code during cross-examination. The argument that cross-examination was impeded because the source code was not made available to the defense at trial was rejected. Only an expert could analyze it and there had been no timely request for it by the defense:

…DNA analysis did not definitively tie defendant to the genetic material recovered from the pistol. The People accordingly sought to present proof of a re-analysis conducted with the TrueAllele Casework System (hereinafter TrueAllele), a computer program that subjects a DNA mixture to statistical modeling techniques to infer what DNA profiles contributed to the mixture and calculate the probability that DNA from a known individual contributed to it. Defendant argued that the TrueAllele evidence should be precluded or that the general acceptance of the technique in the scientific community should be assessed via a Frye hearing. Supreme Court denied the application due to the fact that an extensive Frye hearing had been conducted on the issue in another criminal case in the same county and that a determination, issued weeks before the trial in this matter, was rendered finding that the procedure was not novel and was generally accepted by the relevant scientific community … . People v Fields, 2018 NY Slip Op 02503, Third Dept 4-12-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DNA, REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DNA, REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/FRYE HEARING (DNA, CRIMINAL LAW, REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/TRUEALLELE (DNA, CRIMINAL LAW, REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD 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